Talk:Carl Sagan/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Minor link removal

Robert Anton Wilson's "The Astronomer Who Abolished Gravity" from Cosmic Trigger 3.

Link has been removed. The link does not appear authoritative. In addition, the author makes claims which are false (notably that Sagan "never admitted to ever making an error"). Finally, the page is riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes. I'd also question linking the band Sagan, but one removed link a day is enough for me. Thoughts?

Upon reading the previous discussion page I think that this may thrust this Velikovsky/Sagan issue back to the forefront. Is there a better link that could be submitted that would offer the same critical tone while containing fewer errors and spelling mistakes?

Ann Druyan

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but this text is found within the article under the section "Social Concerns":

'Sagan became more politically active after marrying fellow scientist Ann Druyan'

I was under the impression that Ann Druyan was a writer and not a scientist. I did a search for a biography on Google and could not find any information supporting her being a scientist. I also looked for her CV, but could not find it. Can anyone more "in the know" provide a source for this?

"Education: Attended New York University on and off from 1967 to 1971, but left before graduating to launch a career as a novelist"[1] --JWSchmidt 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I will take the link provided by JWSchmidt to indicate that Ms. Druyan was indeed not a scientist. I will replace the text "fellow scientist" with "novelist" 65.78.8.9 06:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos most watched TV show?

A recent edit to the article says that Cosmos is the most-watched TV show. This link doesn't list it. It might be the most watched PBS TV show. I'm leaving it in for now, pending a citation. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Various 'credible' websites like NASA, [2], [3] and [4] say it's the most watched TV show of all time. I added these links to the article. Sheehan 10:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that supports what I thought. The first link (NASA) says "became the most watched show in public television history". Here in the U.S., we have "commercial television", which means all of the commercial networks. We also have "public television" whish is partly sponsered by the governement, partly by the viewers, and partly by businesses. There were no commercials on public TV until recently. "PBS" is the Public Broadcasting Service in the US. The number of viewers of "public TV" is small compared to commercial TV, so the article needs to state that Cosmos was the most watched show on Public Broadcasting Service. I'll make htat change. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

i think carl sagan is a great man and i remember seeing him on t.v and i think it is brave for the world to keep him iin mind i'm 12 years old and doing a project about because are school is named after him.

Sagan viewing computer science as "pseudoscience"

In the Personality section, there is the statement: "... and he was displeased at being associated with what he considered pseudoscience," (regarding the law suit with Apple). Is there any reference or evidence of this? Working heavily on planetary exploration missions, it would be assumed that he would have an appreciation of computer science (assuming this is what the statement refers to), or generally computers, given astronomy's heavy reliance on them. Further, I remember reading his appreciation and encouragement of the further development of computer science as a field of study from the 1971 conference in Soviet Armenia by the USSR Academy of Sciences as well as the U.S. Academy of Sciences, including that the field would contribute and aid the technological capabilities of planetary/space exploratiion. Or is this not what the statement is referring to? If so, perhaps this statement should be less vague about the matter. C.J. 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for describing a possible source of confusion about that part of the article. This anecdote is meant to illustrate that Sagan was apparently somewhat protective of his reputation and unwilling to have people poke fun at his scientific interests. It was a practice at Apple to have some internal project names that are associated with fringe science. Sagan was interested in SETI, research that some have called pseudoscientific. Sagan struggled to get funding for SETI and was sensitive to efforts to label SETI as fringe science. This had nothing to do with Sagan's attitudes with respect to computers. Sagan did not like the idea of his name and his interests (like SETI) being linked with fringe science or pseudoscience (except in the context of his efforts against pseudoscience). --JWSchmidt 03:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the disassociation with pseudoscience is based on the "Cold Fusion" and "Piltdown Man" code names rather than Apple's actual activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.143.65 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, the pseudoscience concern was related to names like "Cold Fusion" and Piltdown Man". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sagan now in heaven?

In the Conversations with God books by Neale Donald Walsch, God claims that Sagan went to heaven after his demise. Is Neale writing from his own imagination or is the statement true? Any comments? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? How could it be verifiably true? Assuming, even, there is an existence of a "heaven"? Your question is absurd, and I don't see how it relates, in any sense, to any serious nature of the article. Furthermore, I don't see how this Walsch person would be able to make any statement of any individual soul's placement in some afterlife. C.J. 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If Carl Sagan were able to comment, he would doubtless demand verifiable proof of his alleged current location. This claim is just the imaginings of a religious believer.

Atlant 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. But by stating this, you have implied that the whole Conversations with God books are just from the imagination of Neale Donald Walsch. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Was there ever any doubt? only nutters or believers would think otherwise--LexCorp 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a contradictory source of comparable scholarly credibility. In the last entry of The Onion: Our Dumb Century, the Rapture happens at the turn of the millenium, Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell ascend to heaven, and Sagan makes some regretful comments from Hell, where his skull is being used as a chalice by Lucifer. Or something like that. - Reaverdrop 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there was also an Onion article soon after his death in which his restless ghost returns to warn the president of Cornell to seek out a magic amulet that will ward off superstition. Can there be any doubt that The Onion is at least as intimately in contact with God as Neale Donald Walsch? - Reaverdrop 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if you're talking about the christian concept of heaven, probably not. However, one could argue that Carl Sagan tried to make this earth as close to a heaven as he could in his lifetime. And, he saved countless lives by using the nuclear winter thing to convince Defense Department hawks that nuclear war wasn't winnable. He certainly inspired millions with his books and TV appearances. I count him as the major reason why I decided to become a scientist when I was a kid. Does that make him angelic? Does it make him a god? A saint? Or just a seriously awesome guy whose contributions will not be fully appreciated for many decades to come? I favour the latter, but I guess it's up to you to decide. Wandering Star 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting philosophical question, but please remember Wikipedia:No Original Research. Michaelbusch 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs a better picture

I mean, come on, can't anyone find a better (resolutionwise) picture then the one presented now? 82.166.89.110 06:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but this is the fault of the template listing his birthplace, birth-date, etc. C.J. 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

other TV productions

Does anyone remember in the early 80s a TV program of Carl at some seminar, where he was lecturing on the dangers of nuclear war, and the potential resulting nuclear winter? This is a (possibly paraphrased) quote from what I remember him saying

"The extinction of the human species is a terrible thing. The extinction of the human species means you have made meaningless the life of everyone that has ever lived, and the life of everyone that would have lived...."

I have his lecture on betamax tape I think.

Legacy

The part "legacy" was poor and almost offensive, I think the legacy of Sagan is more deeper and important than simply a movie and a musical group. Somebody fix that.--Robotkarel 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

During 1991-1997 I was a graduate student at Cornell University (where Sagan taught). I remember VERY well reading an earlier report in the local cornell press (earlier would be during 1993-1995 I would say) about Sagan's ultimately fatal disease, indicating that several other people in the same building or lab as Sagan had developed cancers...and that this was maybe going to be looked into as to whether there was a common root. Well, the next story about Sagan (in the cornell press --must have been either cornell chronicle or a similar publication) did not mention that.. the ultimate stories about his death, didn't either. I wish I could find (I might still have somewhere) the original paper of that story with that clipping, and give the exact reference...It's much too easy to not investigate this but if anyone cares about the truth, I urge those with the time and resources to investigate, find that original story, and research whethere was was ultimately anything to the speculation. I'm actually at cornell again this year (sabbatical visiting prof position) but can't just walk up to random stranger and sound like I'm making an accusation, if I have time to research it in the local libraries I will, but it's going to be a busy year with projects so I'm hoping a sagan fan is out there who might reserach this (if you find something out, contact me via barzilai.org) in which case it should be added to the wikipedia entry, if/when anything is found with citations... thanks,

--Harel 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

How can an article reach the featured status if it requires cleanup at the same time? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't require cleanup. Deltabeignet 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)'

Sojourner Quote

n an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise entitled "Terra Prime", a quick shot is shown of the relic rover Sojourner, part of the Mars Pathfinder mission, placed by a historical marker at Carl Sagan Memorial Station on the Martian surface. The marker displays a quote from Sagan: "Whatever the reason you're on Mars, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you."

Out of curiosity, is the quote actually there, in real life? Mysticflame 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering this too. --Mike Schiraldi 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

He did indeed say this as part of a greeting to future adventurers to Mars. It was great how they worked that into Star Trek so well, especially considering the beginning of his greeting. Enjoy

Media:sagan_martian_greeting.ogg --Pkeogh 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apple Law Suit

This entire section does not belong in an article summarizing Carl Sagan's life. For those readers interested in the rest of his life, there is so much information to distill down into a readable wiki article, this section should not be included as it doesn't shed significant light on Dr. Sagan's many accomplishments and actions in life. 67.9.61.206 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Mat Zulauf

I thought the article made Sagan seemed outraged at the fact that Apple was using his name in private as a clandstine name for secret projucts so I added the fact that it wasn't untill Apple started pushing the product as "Project Sagan" that he become angry.

"was being used by Apple to sell a product" <-- this seems to contradict what is already in the article: "the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing". --JWSchmidt 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted the recent addition out again. Maybe we should mention the revised code name: "BHA -- Butt-Headed Astronomer"? ;-)

Atlant 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the fact that Apple was using his name as a joke to make "billions and billions" for Apple and removed the "in honor" bit. It conincides with the refrence already in exstence so the change seemed to fit like the perfect puzzle piece. ::Antiproconist 1:52 PM, 31 July 2006

The problem here is that companies use the tactic of framing the debate by picking an activity like "public marketing" which they can say they never participated in. As if this was the only area that is objectionable for them to use Sagan's name in. This also serves to distract from other uses of names or claims, in say, usenet postings by Apple employees, or leaks to media. Apple resorted to some weasel words in their defense strategy. (This is perhaps the 3rd addition i've made to this page, and i assumed my IP address would be added next to my entry. This appears to not be the case. I hope this doesn't cause any confusion -SAS)

Regarding the Velikovsky debate

Velikovsky's theory was examined in Cosmos and the point Carl Sagan was trying to make was that all theories deserved to be evaluated according to the scientific method. No theory, however outlandish, should simply be dismissed or ridiculed because doing so runs the risk of missing important insights. Science is not immune to orthodoxy. I did not see or read about the conference referred to in the discussion on this talk page. It would appear Carl Sagan gave in to temptation and used humour instead of following his sober advice to the letter. Pendragon39 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "all scientific theories deserved to be evaluated according to the scientific method". Critics of pseudoscience do not introduce the humor; humorous outcomes are a natural result of the practice of pseudoscience. If you throw away the error correcting methods of science you stop doing science and end up believing in errors, often they are silly errors. People who do something silly look silly, particularly if they seem to be unaware that they are silly. Science is a human activity. Humor is part of human life. Often humor can get people to think when a logical argument does not. I think you have to ask if Sagan was making fun of honest scientific theories or if he was discussing the humor that is inherent in pseudoscience. It is a common tactic for pseudoscientists to try to elevate their work to the status of science and then call "foul" when they are laughed at. Belief in things such as infallible revelation is not a valid foundation for a scientific hypothesis or theory. It is a matter of taste when it comes to using humor to deal with people who take themselves too seriously. Many scientists just ignore pseudoscience and hope it goes away. Sagan decided to confront pseudoscience, including its humorous aspects. --JWSchmidt 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That people react by seeing humour doesn't affect Sagan's original point. Humour and emotional reactions are not part of the scientific method. Seeing something as silly does not get people to think - it gives them an excuse to ignore and dismiss. Pendragon39 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sagan Involved in Project A119

Does anyone have a source for this? It seems unlikely Sagan would have been involved in a top secert air force project while still in school. I am going to delete it if no one can come up with anything. Daniel J. Leivick 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two references in the Wikipedia article on A119. One of these is a space.com article, which lists Carl as being involved. It is in turn derived from a [to the editor in Nature], in which Leonard Reiffel, who was in charge of A119, described Carl's involvement to correct a perceived error by one of his biographers. According to Reiffel, he hired Carl, then a graduate student, to model the effects of an atomic detonation on the Moon, on the recommendation of Gerard Kuiper. While this may seem unusual, it is not unprecedented. Various grad students worked on the Manhattan Project, for example. On a more prosaic level, a great deal of space-related research has historically been deemed restricted, although not classified or top secret. Michaelbusch 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this was dropping nukes so it may have been different. Regardless I think what Daniel was getting at was that Carl may have still be in school. Not university (i.e. college and later grad school for the US) but school as in secondary school. The Project A119 is unclear, it's possible he was in school at the time, it's possible he was in university Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sagan refference in "White and Nerdy" video

In the video of the song "White and Nerdy" by "Wierd Al" Yankovic, Al, when walking through a comic book store, is wearing a shirt that says "Carl Sagan is my homeboy." Would it be worth mentioning that in the Legacy section, or would that be a small enough refference not to be mentioned? FVZA_Colonel 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not worth mentioning. If we did, the number of equally significant references would be several hundred.Michaelbusch 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it briefly I came to the same conclusion, for much the same reasons. Thank you for responding. FVZA_Colonel 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we probably should have a section that demonstrates Sagan's ripples into pop culture. Including the White and Nerdy video. -SAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Sagan's Cosmos Series

I have recently seen some of the episodes of Cosmos that are being rerun on The Science Channel. Am I the only one who finds these shows almost completely lacking in Science material? I am a heavy fan of Science related shows on tv and articles on wikipedia but I find the Cosmos episodes so slow in scientific material to almost put you to sleep. Part of the issue is his habit of hanging on his words and drawing out his sentances to great lengths. I see the article saying how great Cosmos was but it appears to me to be just a below average science show. I was thinking of adding something regarding this to this page or the Cosmos page. Any comments? Ergzay 02:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Cosmos is now dated, so that some amount of the science in it has ceased to be as impressive as it was originally. Another aspect is that science television programs have evolved greatly since then, so if you are comparing Cosmos only to newer material, your judgement will be biased. Most programs are much narrower in scope, as well. Also, your objections to the show seem to be the style of the presentation, rather than the content. Stating the popularity of Cosmos here is not a problem, because it was indeed very popular. Judging Cosmos as 'below average' is a problematic statement at best, because comparing it to later programs is not necessarily meaningful and others may contest your assessment of the style.Michaelbusch 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos was a watershed event in both television and science education. If you were old enough to be "reasonably conscious" in 1980 you would understand. ;-) If you're too young, you can be forgiven for taking for granted what we see as commonplace science-programming. We see farther because we stood on tall shoulders. It's interesting that for a show that started production in 1977, some 30 years later, it still rates being on prime-time cable TV. -SAS 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive Request

Could someone please archive the bulk of this page and then remove this section? Thanks. Michaelbusch 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sagancruft

In 2004, the electronic music group Sagan released the CD/DVD "Unseen Forces." The music was accompanied by a DVD which featured humorous music video format homages of many of the historical sketches from Cosmos.

That's a cruft too far. I've removed it because it has only a very tenuous connection with Sagan. --Tony Sidaway 10:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people should take it upon themselves to remove things which they personally deem trivial. Several music entities admit lineage from Sagan inspiration, and it should be noted. -SAS 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that...

It has been pointed out that Sagan wasn't being logically consistent.

If this is the case, then someone will have to find whoever pointed it out and cite that. Also it's probably better to avoid "pointed out" because it assumes opinion as fact (See Weasel words). --Tony Sidaway

Civil Disobedience

The recent additions to this section are interesting, but the long discussion of history seems excessive and redundant with the rest of the article. I suggest reversion. Michaelbusch 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you actually take the time to read the relevant section from the page I directed your attention to in my edit summary (Wikipedia:Revert), which I am posting here, so you have no excuse for not reading it and taking it to heart.

==When to revert==

===Do's===

See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

===Dont's===

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

To which I would add the following:

Reverting is never an appropriate substitute for expending the time and effort necessary for thoughtful and respectful editing (and discussion) of material that has been labored over by another editor. Reverting is the lazy person's response to complex and time-consuming issues, and is, in fact, inversely commensurate with the effort that was required to produce the material that's being reverted. 30 seconds versus 90 minutes: hardly a fair exchange — and extremely disrespectful.

By now it should be apparent that I am really offended by the way you've dealt with this. When I asked you to avail yourself of the talk page, I was expecting that you would at least have the decency to give me some sort of thoughtful discussion of what your specific concerns were, and possibly (hopefully) some sort of apology for your inconsiderate action. Instead, you essentially repeated the same vague (and unpersuasive) generalities that you had already written in your edit summary, and again resorted to calling for reversion of the entire section. That is just not acceptable.

How is it possible that you have made a very considerable number of WP edits, but haven't yet bothered to learn how to work with other WP editors in a collegial fashion? I am truly mystified. I always do my very best to engage other editors with real respect for the work they've put into their writing (even when it's somewhat mediocre). In contrast, your decision to dispose of my work with the simple expedient of reverting it, was no better than common, garden-variety vandalism. Please take a minute, or an hour, or however long it may take you to put yourself in my place, and imagine how it felt to have someone come along and (presto!) revert an entire section that I had taken great care to write and find links for — as casually as flushing a toilet. That was certainly the last thing I expected to see when I took a quick look at my watchlist this afternoon. Quite an unpleasant surprise, and not my idea of a Thanksgiving treat.

So, where does that leave us? If you actually want to put in the time to have a serious discussion of what I wrote, then please show me that you deserve my respect as a fellow WP editor by (at the very least) acknowledging that you've handled this badly. I don't believe in demanding apologies (seems to undercut the whole idea), but it would certainly be welcome — and appreciated.

Craig Gingold - Cgingold 08:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the offense. I have read and understood the policies. But I feel that the article was fine to begin with and now it has paragraphs of redundancy added (i.e. why do we need summaries of 1980's politics when all that is being discussed is Carl climbing a fence?). As I said above, the material is interesting, but not appropriate for the article. Consequently, I could have edited it directly, but the edits I would have made would have been almost equivalent to reversion. I apologize again for giving offense, but I have only tried to be honest. Michaelbusch 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Michael (and for your personal note on my talk page). Obviously, I don't agree with your feeling that "the article was fine to begin", or I wouldn't have added the new material in the first place. Even after a third read through of related material elsewhere in the article, I am scratching my head over your reiterated claim of "redundancy" — I still haven't found any. The new material is not merely "interesting", but necessary: it provides the context that makes it possible for readers to (more fully) grasp the significance of Sagan's actions during this period. If there is a particular word or phrase that really, really bothers you, I'm certainly willing to discuss your concerns. Beyond that, it seems to me that you should be able to live with what I've added. Cgingold 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly live with it. Like so many things, we can agree to disagree. Michaelbusch 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Q:"i.e. why do we need summaries of 1980's politics when all that is being discussed is Carl climbing a fence?" A:It's about context. Sagan was heavily involved in behind the scenes big-name politics, as far as trying to avert nuclear proliferation. If you knew the full details, you'd no doubt be agog at the gravitas and influence this one man had. -SAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Review of two biographies in: Clark R. Chapman (2000). "Two Views of a Star's Life". Science 287 (5450): 46 - 47. doi:10.1126/science.287.5450.46.

A short biography is available at: Owen Gingerich (1999). "Carl Sagan". PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 143 (4): 712-716.

Extraordinary claims

In this part, under Personality, is it worth scrapping the Truzzi reference and mentioning David Hume's "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish[.]"? Perhaps they're not related, it just struck me as being earlier than the Laplace principle. Leon 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

External links...

What happened to the ELs?? I'd be the first to admit they needed a trim, but I went on a wikibreak and now someone seems to have deleted almost all of them. (And several of the deleted itesm seemed rather useful to me). Mikker ^(...) 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Carl was too major a player for people to just go snipping information out. 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Graduate students

It'd be nice to add a section listing his former graduate students (i.e., Steve Squyres)... changcho (13-II-2007)

I agree. Sagan influenced students like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Likewise, students such as Peter Wilson had a profound effect on Carl's thinking about anthropocentrism and our attitudes towards towards other species. -SAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sagan and marijuana use

According the BBC, "For much of his adult life, Sagan used marijuana and believed that it gave him many of his best ideas." [9] Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that his use of marijuana and his strong advocacy of evolutionary ideas may have been related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

They probably were related - I dimly recall reading that Sagan (as Mr X) said he did his best thinking while high. -- Pookington

No need to "dimly recall" as the link to the actual essay he wrote is here: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

By his own admission, marijuana was an integral part of Sagan's entire adult life, and inspired many of his best theories. His wife is a NORML board member and his best friend for 30 years was Dr Lester Grinspoon. Surely this information is as relevant as the rest of the article? But people keep deleting the marijuana information even though it is referenced and accurate. Why are his views on other topics explored in detail, but his article on how he was often inspired by marijuana is not worthy of more than the briefest mention? 70.68.141.163 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Dec 26, 2007, thehighguy

No, it's not as important as the rest of the article. Is that what he's famous for? No. Mention it -- sure. Go into much detail -- no. He is not his wife. He is not his best friend. Their actions do not define his life. Ask 100 people what Carl Sagan accomplished in life. Of those who even remember him, not one is going to say marijuana. This is trivia.Doczilla (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By just reverting back and undoing this information Doczilla is not behaving in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit. If you think it is biased or too lengthy, you should fix it instead of iust deleting it outright. Besides, Sagan's marijuana use received major international media attention when it came to light. Sagan himself said that marijuana inspired much of his life and his work. Is Sagan's lifetime marijuana use less relevant than the lengthy section on UFOs, or the paragraph with Isaac Asimov thinking Sagan was smarter than him, or all the details about the whole Apple/BHA lawsuit? Lester Grinspoon was his best friend for 30 years, isn't that fact alone relevant and undeserving of deletion? And isn't the link to the actual essay Sagan wrote about his love of marijuana deserving to be there? Just deleting all this stuff with an undo is poor editing.

So I put much of this information about marijuana back in, but I tightened it up a bit, and moved it from "Social Concerns" to the "Personal life and beliefs" section where it actually belongs. There was a note already there that this section is missing adequate "personal information" and certainly Sagan's regular use of and inspiration by cannabis is a relevant part of his "personality." The information is accurate, referenced, relevant and not overly wordy. I think it should remain. We're only talking about less than 200 words in a 4500 word article. DanaLarsen (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Dana Larsen

Re: "By just reverting back and undoing this information Doczilla is not behaving in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit." Read the article. It still says he used marijuana and that it may have inspired him. You really ought to read what's there before you go saying things like that. And two reverts does not exactly constitute an edit war. I reverted once and explained the revert. When I reverted the second time, I offered a new explanation in the spirit of engaging in dialogue.

Re: "If you think it is biased or too lengthy, you should fix it instead of iust deleting it outright." I reverted it to the tightened up version as it was before an anoymous user added trivial detail. I never deleted the marijuana section. I returned it to its more appropriate from earlier in the day. Doczilla (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out the phrase "although he never admitted this publicly during his life." because in this 2001 interview here his wife Ann Druyan explains that "About ten years ago, a caller asked Carl on the Larry King radio show if he was for legalizing marijuana. He didn't hesitate to say yes. My recollection is that Larry followed up by asking Carl if he had ever smoked marijuana, and he again said yes. We thought there would be some fallout, but there was none. We didn't hear anybody say that Carl Sagan was a bad person because he used marijuana, and indeed marijuana was a wholly positive part of his life."DanaLarsen (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Dana Larsen

Merge from Minimum deterrence

Someone has proposed that Minimum deterrence be merged here. I disagree, and think it should have it's own article. I'll delete the merge tag in a few days if I don't hear any objection. --Selket ^Talk 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Although the section dealing with Worlds in Collision does an admirable job of stating the contrary view, the organization is problematic in that it suggests that Worlds in Collision is best treated as a piece of pseudoscience instead of as a substantial scientific view that Sagan disagreed with. This section should be reorganized by somebody who knows the material better to separate the issue of Sagan's anti-pseudoscience views from his attack on the book. 68.101.70.37 15:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Velikovsky's work was never a 'substantial scientific view'. See the Worlds in Collision article: 'overwhelming rejection of its thesis by the scientific community'. This doesn't merit an NPOV tag. Michaelbusch 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Carl Sagan

Atheism is not a religion. Therefore, I have removed it. 81.228.195.119 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that change. It may not be a religion, but it is still the most accurate description of his religious beliefs and should be included. Adam McMaster 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried another approach; does it suit both of you?

Atlant 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current wording is fine with me. Adam McMaster 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect 81.228.195.119 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!

Atlant 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Atheism should be removed. Carl Sagan has never described himself as an Atheist. - mbk 4/25/07

"Atheist" and "agnostic," unfortunately, are not terribly well-defined terms. Carl is obviously some kinds of "atheist" and not others. He never publicly said "there is no God," for example, but he did often express strong skepticism on the subject, and made it clear he didn't expect an afterlife or anything. As such, "agnostic/atheist" seems to me like a suitably ambiguous description. Mycroft7 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster's definition of "Atheist" as a noun is "one who believes that there is no deity." The definition of "Agnostic" as a noun, broadly put, is "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." Although Sagan's wife is a known Atheist, the same can not be said for Sagan. He neither affirms nor denies the existence of God. Seeing as "Atheist" is expressly defined as stated above, I argue that the term Agnostic be used to best describe Sagan's religious beliefs until a more appropriate descriptor noun or special section be created or not for that matter. I will edit accordingly. Please provide an argument for a re-edit if need be. Michaelkulov 23:57, 25 April 2007 (CST)

I know it's already been somewhat decided upon, but for the record, I don't think the Merriam-Webster definition suitably encompasses the various meanings of the term. I'm thinking of terms like Weak and strong atheism and agnostic atheism, among other things. In this case, agnostic/atheist is actually a more precise description than either agnostic or atheist alone. However, I agree that its rather unsatisfactory. Mycroft7 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to point out that Weak Atheism appears to be nothing more than a redefintion of the current definition for Agnosticism and that Strong Atheism is merely a redefinition of the word Atheism. As for Agnostic Atheism, the same thing holds. If one cannot claim Atheism, then they must either claim Theism or remain undecided due to lack of Knowledge. As for the sources of your cited articles, I question their bias. 209.187.72.3 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how potential bias in the references is relevant, since this has nothing to do with the merits of various beliefs, only with the names by which people who hold them identify themselves. Seeing as how Richard Dawkins, famous for being a vocal atheist as much as anything, identifies as a "weak atheist," I don't think you can reasonably say it doesn't fall under the "current definition" of atheism. Or at least a current definition, since, as I've been trying to say, the term is rather ambiguous. Mycroft7 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how Atheism draws much of its basis from denotative, explicit "Understanding" it seems odd that the subjugating of the concept deserves any recognition. The definitions of the two terms, Atheist and Agnostic should be sufficient, seeing as how most skeptics can fall under 1 of 2 categories. I claim that since Dawkins described himself as a "Weak Atheist," I would then, with respect to his own stance on this, classify him as an Agnostic. Regards, Michaelkulov 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The senior member michaelbush has pointed out that there is a concensus on this, and although I do not agree, and furthermore do not aknowledge a true concensus, I respectfully aknowledge my senior member and offer my dissention here as a caveat for future readers. Thank youMichaelkulov 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who argues that Atheism is not a religion is fooling themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.69.2 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. To argue this is to proceed for a religious worldview.

Let's simplify. The unabridged definitions of "Atheist" and "Atheism" have multiple nuances that most people can't be bothered to notice. Atheist is literally, a-theist, or non-theist. In this religious culture, people react as if this were the same thing as saying "there is no god, and there can be no gods". There are militant atheists who take the latter position, but generally, the proper definition of "atheist" is closer to agnostic than the "there can't be any god" type of atheism that many people think of when they hear the word "atheist". The fact is, most people don't know the full unabridged definition of atheist. Clearly, Carl was a non-theist, though some might argue that Ann Druyan has confused people a bit by talking about "God" as the laws of physics/nature. I think this is her way of soft-selling atheism, so as to avoid rubbing people the wrong way. Anyway, Carl didn't believe in God, nor in any afterlife. there was no deathbed conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.147.61 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glitch?

Is there a glitch/error on the page? The infobox is repeated three times and the article starts with three "<"s (at lest on my browser", but none of that shows up on the Edit page. Jeztah 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we deal with SquelchBot? I'm adding info that it removes. For example in the EL's, it's claimed that the magazine Cosmos was inspired by Sagan. I added a link to the mag's own site that seemingly contradicts that claim. It was deleted. I also added important info and clarifications on the link to the Pale Blue Dot "Wanderers" video by Lang Kasranov; like pointing out that the video was assembled from pre-existing sources, not created for his unauthorized PBD project, and that it was done posthumously by a fan, by using audiobook narration (as opposed to something that Sagan estate had any part of). That too was deleted. 74.79.147.61 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting this article back to FA status

I can't find the rationale as to why this article had its FA status revoked. Could someone direct me to that info? Or does anyone know what problems have been pointed out with this? I'd be happy to bring this back to FA status for Carl's sake. AdamBiswanger1 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find the FAR here. As far as I can tell, the citations aren't up to par and the article was deemed not comprehensive enough. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives