Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BootinUp

(49,023 posts)
Thu Nov 9, 2023, 08:28 PM Nov 2023

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (BootinUp) on Sun Nov 26, 2023, 01:28 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

keithbvadu2

(40,111 posts)
1. 1+
Thu Nov 9, 2023, 08:30 PM
Nov 2023

Blue Owl

(54,737 posts)
2. K and freaking R
Thu Nov 9, 2023, 08:31 PM
Nov 2023

Where has all the critical thinking gone?

mitch96

(14,657 posts)
3. Dictators don't like critical thinking. It messes up their plan...nt
Thu Nov 9, 2023, 09:02 PM
Nov 2023

Wonder Why

(4,589 posts)
4. Sagan was a big BSer himself.
Thu Nov 9, 2023, 10:17 PM
Nov 2023

He "calculated" how many planets would contain life by making up numbers. I remember watching that show on TV and wondering how he got away with that.

Response to Wonder Why (Reply #4)

Wonder Why

(4,589 posts)
8. I stand by what I said. He got too much into polularizing science that, IMHO, he was trying to prove that other
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 11:44 AM
Nov 2023

planets existed with life that he used a bit of mumbo jumbo on his show using too much supposing.

Response to Wonder Why (Reply #8)

Wonder Why

(4,589 posts)
15. His book or his show. I'm referring to the latter where he did a lot of speculating but didn't make it clear when he did
Sat Nov 11, 2023, 04:11 PM
Nov 2023

so resulting in people thinking he was presenting fact. I knew his numbers were made up based on what he said on the show and how he said it, but I never heard him clarify that which means it was falsely presented. I watched all his shows when originally aired and used to complain to my uncle, a university professor of Chemistry and Astronomy.

Response to Wonder Why (Reply #15)

Woodwizard

(987 posts)
6. If I remember correctly.
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 06:46 AM
Nov 2023

He put theoretical numbers of how many suns would have planets, we did not have the technology at the time to know for certain to detect planets. His numbers were actually probably lower than what we now know.

But it is over 40 years since I watched it.

Wonder Why

(4,589 posts)
7. That's right and that's not science. It was BS. Science uses proofs for facts, not invented numbers.
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 11:34 AM
Nov 2023

And it's not a matter of voting by scientists that determine the facts. That's why the Big Bang is referred to as a theory (unless it has been proven to be true since I last checked).

As to intelligent life, we still have only one planet to use as a reference and you can't make calculations as to how many other planets also have intelligent life based on a count of one. Even now.

NNadir

(34,662 posts)
9. Good science often, and perhaps most of the time, originates from speculation.
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 11:47 AM
Nov 2023

It is true that if speculation is based on math, extending even down to the crude back of the envelop level, it's generally more worthy of pursuit than if it merely springs from, say, wishful thinking, but without imagination there is no science.

I was never a giant Carl Sagan fan, but I do note that as a result of his advocacy for space exploration, particularly the useful kind involving robotic probes, we are collecting real data about the frequency of planetary systems, extending even down to some, if limited, information about their chemistry.

I often speculate that the origins of life are astrophysical since radiation/matter interactions possibly explain chemical asymmetry. This is certainly not provable or disprovable with current technology, but I think it a worthy speculation, and I believe it does at least involve science.

Woodwizard

(987 posts)
10. But he did not call it science.
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 11:48 AM
Nov 2023

He stated it was just an educated guess not fact.

Response to Woodwizard (Reply #10)

Warpy

(113,130 posts)
13. A bigger problem than not liking what you saw on a TV show
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 03:53 PM
Nov 2023

is reducing a scientist's entire body of work to what you saw on that show.

That TV show was watered down so that people with little understanding of current scientific understanding could digest it in hour long segments once a week. Also, it was the understanding of what we knew 50 years ago, so we've moved on considerably.

It was slightly dated when it ran, and PBS has repeated it far beyond it's "best by" date, which is why there is so much criticism of Sagan, especially by the young.

It was what it was, opening minds to possibilities when it was fresh and new, both naive and shopworn in current context.

NNadir

(34,662 posts)
11. I was never a big Sagan fan, but I do like his statements of logical fallacies better than many others I read.
Fri Nov 10, 2023, 11:50 AM
Nov 2023

Hence I bookmarked it.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»This message was self-del...