PDF Summary:The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan

Renowned astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan believes the world is in a precarious position. Science has taught us a great deal about the world and brought about many beneficial changes to humanity, yet we still cling to unscientific beliefs and ideas at an alarming level. Sagan argues that as we advance into the 21st century and beyond, our collective ignorance of scientific methods, values, and thinking may be catastrophic to us and the world we live in.

In The Demon-Haunted World, he tries to counteract these dangers by teaching the scientific method and encouraging the application of critical and skeptical thinking in all facets of life. In our guide, we’ll examine Sagan’s argument that a less scientifically-minded society is a less prosperous and functional one. We’ll look at how the issues Sagan addresses have developed in the 25 years since the book’s publication. We’ll also look at how we, both individually and collectively, can remain critical and well-informed in an increasingly complex world.

(continued)...

Other Reasons People Think Science Is Evil

Researchers have found that although science is a well-respected profession, many people still associate scientists with immoral conduct. There are several potential reasons for this association that Sagan doesn’t touch on.

• People are motivated by their ideologies: If people don’t agree with scientists’ conclusions, they’ll be more likely to find them wrong or immoral.

• Scientists are blamed for societal deterioration: Some people are suspicious or critical of science because they link scientific progress with moral decline, pessimism, and potential technological disaster. For example, the public’s anxiety about nuclear energy indicates worry about technological catastrophe.

• The mad scientist trope distorts views on scientists: The stereotype of the evil or crazy scientist is seen throughout our culture (Dr. Strangelove, Frankenstein). This pervasive stereotype can damage scientists’ reputations.

• Widely publicized cases of fraud make scientists seem corrupt: When a scientist violates ethical standards through plagiarism or falsification of data, it sometimes becomes a big news story, further damaging the reputation of scientists.

Science Is Too Narrow, Restrictive, and Reductive

Because of its skeptical and critical nature, some may say science is too quick to rule out any sort of explanation without physical evidence. It constrains a vast world of possibilities into a much smaller world of provable reality. It sets limits on what we can and can’t do. It tries to explain the complexity of the universe with mere mathematical equations and laws of nature. But the laws of nature, Sagan says, are an observable fact. They have been proven through calculated testing and retesting of hypotheses. The way the world works has nothing to do with our beliefs, assumptions, or desires.

(Shortform note: Some suggest that one reason science is seen as too narrow or restrictive is that it fails to explain why things matter. Science may be able to explain things about the natural world with more and more accuracy, but it has yet to provide people the emotional value they seek from religion or other supernatural explanations. Science may disprove some religious teachings, but it doesn’t provide any valuable alternatives, and it may never be able to.)

Science Changes Too Quickly

Just when we think we understand something about the world, scientists say this is no longer true. New discoveries are constantly being made that disprove a previously ironclad scientific theory. To some, this may make science seem as if it is erratic or arbitrary. But this is simply the way science is supposed to work. The fact that things are always changing is a sign that we are making progress and that no idea or theory is beyond criticism or reevaluation.

Convincing Others to Change Their Mind

Perhaps one reason people criticize the constant changing in science is that we are naturally resistant to change, even when presented with facts. A recent example of this sort of criticism can be seen in the government’s changing guidance on Covid-19 measures and the public’s response. As scientists learned more about the transmission of Covid-19, the guidelines on mask-wearing, vaccines, and social distancing also changed. The CDC and elected officials have received a lot of criticism for their ever-changing advice on face masks and other covid measures.

There are, however, some ways we can better influence others to change their minds, such as finding common ground, framing our views in a positive light, and allowing others a sense of agency over their choices.

We May Be Better Off Not Knowing

Some suggest we may be better off without some of the knowledge science provides. What if a major scientific discovery with profound implications completely unravels an otherwise orderly society? Is releasing this information necessary if it doesn’t benefit the general public?

Sagan suggests that no matter the case, we are better off knowing the truth. It is preferable to know the way things are rather than believe in a reassuring delusion. The potential consequences of some world-shattering discoveries are probably overestimated. Furthermore, no human, or group of humans, is wise enough to correctly determine what knowledge should be withheld from the rest of humanity. No one should have that power.

Science: Openness Versus Secrecy

Sagan maintains that science should remain accessible to the public as much as possible. Researchers suggest, though, that while openness is an important scientific principle, there are limits: There may be good reasons for maintaining some secrecy in research. Such reasons include protecting intellectual property, protecting the privacy of research participants or scientists, and protecting populations from threats to national or international security.

Some of the cases regarding the withholding of research raise some troubling issues. Biomedical companies, for example, have been known to not publish the results of clinical trials that present their products as risky or dangerous. In the case of national security, the government has deemed some scientific findings too risky to publish because they fear terrorist organizations will use them to create biological or chemical weapons. In such cases, we have to consider the potential risks and benefits of publishing certain studies, as well as the scientists’ right to free speech.

How to Remain Critical in the Modern Age

Sagan says the pervasive commercialism of our modern world and our seemingly unlimited access to information make it much harder to determine what’s true and what’s not. Let’s explore why we’re often taken in by false advertising and how to evaluate the veracity of a claim.

How Commercial Culture Discourages Critical Thinking

Sagan claims that commercial culture erodes our critical faculties in order to make money. Skepticism, he says, doesn’t sell. Exaggerated headlines and pseudosciences appeal to our emotions, engender more attention, and thus, generate more profits. For this reason, we’re likely to encounter many false or misleading claims through various media (television, radio, newspapers, and online sources): We’re constantly encouraged to buy things without thinking too much about what we’re buying or if the claims about the efficacy of the product are even valid. According to Sagan, even “real scientists” promote products for personal gain at the expense of the consumer and science alike. Commercial culture cultivates a general sense of credulity amongst the population, which is then used to feed you more baloney and extract more of your money.

Deceptive Advertising

Sagan was particularly prescient in his discussion of commercial culture. In 2022, deceptive or misleading claims in advertisements are still common. Here are some deceptive ad trends experts are worried about in 2022:

• Amazon’s liability: A large part of Amazon’s business is marketing and selling third-party products on its platform. Many have filed lawsuits trying to hold Amazon accountable for misleading customers or selling fake products, but these issues still remain.

• Life-saving claims: The criteria used for what is considered “life-saving” may differ from one company to the next. For example, Life Alert appears to have a very loose definition of “life-saving” to make it look like it saves more lives than it actually does.

• Income claims: As the multi-level marketing (MLM) industry grows, so do claims that people can make a lot of money by joining an MLM. These claims are usually false or exaggerated, as the vast majority of people joining MLMs make little or no money.

• Dark patterns: Dark patterns include things like tricking customers into signing up for subscriptions, claiming a product is in limited supply when it isn’t, or “confirmshaming,” in which customers are guilted into making purchases.

Tools for Skeptical Thinking

Sagan argues that skeptical thinking is more important in the modern world than ever before. The processes of science have a toolkit for skeptical thinking built in, one which the general public may not use or even be aware of. Essentially, skeptical thinking is a method of creating and understanding a well-founded argument. Sagan recommends asking some questions aimed at fostering skepticism:

• Can a study be validated by other sources? Research that isn’t validated by outside sources is much more likely to be biased, fabricated, or irreproducible. A strong hypothesis will get the same results study after study. This is why reputable science journals only publish peer-reviewed research.
• Is the argument based on evidence or an authority? There are experts in science, not authorities. An argument from an authoritative figure does not carry any more weight. The validity of a claim depends entirely on the evidence, not the person or group providing it.
• Can a hypothesis be disproved? If a claim can’t be disproven, it can’t be proven, because there is no real way to test the hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are a common tactic of pseudosciences. They shield themselves from criticism by making assertions that others can’t disprove.

How to Be a “True” Skeptic

Skepticism is a major principle of the scientific method, but it can be used incorrectly. Experts note that the language of skepticism has been co-opted to lend credence to pseudosciences and conspiracy theories. Anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers may tell you to “do your own research” instead of going along with conventional wisdom. There are many “skeptics” like this, and most of them are motivated by a desire for the truth, but there is real danger when claims that vaccines cause autism are treated as seriously as the science behind the vaccines.

This brand of skepticism seems to be more about discrediting established science or questioning objective truth in general than about making a valid argument against it. Scientific skepticism is open to criticism. It challenges widely accepted beliefs, but it does so while adhering to evidence. It is not enough to simply be skeptical—you must be willing to support your claims, not just question everything and attack all other claims to knowledge. Therefore, while the above skeptical questions Sagan provides are a good start, it’s important to also take into account the credibility of any alternative sources of information you look to—for example, independent validation of a hypothesis should come from a credible source.

Common Fallacies

Sagan claims it’s just as important to understand deceptive or fallacious arguments as it is to understand a reasonable argument. There is a long list of logical and rhetorical fallacies, and many of them are commonly seen in religious and political discourse. They’re also frequently used to criticize science. Here are a few of the most common examples.

• Non sequitur: When the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premise of the argument. Many of the logical fallacies mentioned can be considered nonsequiturs.
• Ad hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Essentially, this is resorting to name-calling instead of making an actual counterargument.
• Appeal to authority: When an opinion from an authority is used to support an argument
• False dichotomy: To only consider the two extreme sides of an argument when there are many more options
• Straw man: To distort or exaggerate an opposing argument to make it easier to attack

Fallacious Antiscience Arguments

Sagan provides common examples of rhetorical fallacies. It is important to understand how they work for any argument, but with climate change denial growing, understanding in particular how they’re used to criticize science is crucial. Scientists found common rhetorical techniques used for science denial across a range of topics including climate change and evolution. There are five common techniques of science denial.

• Fake experts: When an unqualified person or institution is presented as a source of credible information. This can be seen as an extension of the appeal to authority. It is not the person’s credentials that matter, but their argument. An example might be: “A retired physicist argues that the current weather change is completely natural.”

• Logical fallacies: Also known as nonsequiturs. There are many logical fallacies used to deny science. Here are examples: “Climate science can’t be trusted because climate scientists are biased.” (Ad hominem) “Climate has changed naturally in the past, so current climate change must also be natural.” (False dichotomy) “In the 1970s, climate scientists predicted there would be an ice age.” (Straw man)

• Impossible expectations: Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science. For example, “Scientists don’t know what the climate will be like decades from now.”

• Cherry picking: Selecting data that supports your argument while ignoring data that contradicts it. For instance, “There are record low temperatures today—whatever happened to global warming?”

• Conspiracy theories: In regard to science denial, this often involves some secret plan to hide the truth for nefarious reasons. An example could be: “The temperature record is fabricated by scientists to push a socialist agenda.”

Social and Political Change Through Science

Sagan argues that once you adhere to the scientific tenets of skepticism and critical thinking, you’ll probably extend these principles into the social and political sphere. Because skepticism questions preconceived notions and poorly founded assumptions, science challenges the established order. In general, the more we learn about ourselves and the natural world, the more absurd and flawed the ideas of racism, misogyny, and nationalism seem. The more we share knowledge and information, the more we threaten those in power. The methods of science can be used not only to advance civilization, but also to uphold the ideals of freedom and democracy.

Eliminating Stereotypes With Science

Sagan believes a better, broader understanding of science would counteract bigotry and intolerance. To this day, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, genders, and sexual preferences are all stereotyped. According to Sagan, stereotypes are antithetical to the principles of science. Stereotypes tend to focus on a small amount of information while ignoring the rest. They shield us from the realities of the world and keep us from having to consider the complexity and diversity of humanity. They make things easier for one group of people at the expense of another.

Science, when correctly used, is independent of cultural biases. It tries to understand the world without glossing over the details. Science calls into question the insidious claims promoted through stereotypes. It argued against the inhumanness of black people used to justify slavery. It dismantled the misogynistic theory that women were too unintelligent or emotional to vote or become scientists. Bigotry survives through ignorance, while science relies on understanding.

How Science Dispels Racist Myths

Despite Sagan’s assertion that science can counteract stereotypes, scientists aren’t immune to bigotry. For example, science has a long and troubled history regarding race, and it’s still trying to overcome its racist legacy. Dating back centuries, the institutions of science supported racist beliefs, such as the idea that race determines our human traits and abilities, or the idea that white people are superior to non-white. Today, even as we’ve known for decades that race is largely a social construct, scientific discrimination still persists.

Geneticists, however, are fighting the myth that racism is in any way grounded in scientific fact:

Myth: The physical appearance, especially skin color, of humans can be predicted by genetics.

Counter: Skin color predicts very little about the genetic similarities and differences between individuals or populations. A variety of skin colors occur across the globe, and studies show that DNA doesn’t accurately predict skin color in separate geographic regions.

Myth: Race determines our abilities. An example of this is the idea that people of African descent are athletically superior.

Counter: A small number of genetic variants are often “fetishized” by our culture and applied to entire communities. Genetics shows us that racial theories of athleticism are inconsistent.

Myth: There is a correlation between race and IQ.

Counter: Intelligence is largely due to environmental factors such as upbringing and educational access. Furthermore, IQ tests in particular are extremely biased toward white, Western society, and some suggest they cannot objectively measure intelligence at all.

Fighting Power With Science

According to Sagan, a well-informed and scientifically minded society will be better equipped to fight back against the injustices imposed by powerful institutions. Authoritarian governments and other powerful organizations use many tactics to suppress diverse opinions and concentrate power. They rewrite history or distort facts to more closely align with their interests. They stoke fear, anger, and hatred among the people to divide them. They use the media to influence and shape public opinion.

A critically thinking public, however, would be able to see through these tactics. A society well-versed in the scientific method could adequately question those in power and would not be so easily persuaded by the media. A skeptical culture, one that does not easily succumb to unscientific ideas, unfounded arguments, or appeals to their basest emotions, will help give power back to the masses.

Mass Media as Propaganda

In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman demonstrate the need for a critically thinking public. They argue that American media is a powerful tool for propaganda that defends the interests of the nation’s political, economic, and social elite. Although there is generally a major difference of opinion between elites and the general public, the media promotes the opinions of the political establishment and marginalizes alternative voices. The media limits the range of debate to a small number of subjects, suppressing views that fall outside this limited range.

As mass media has grown into an enormous industry, the consolidation of powers within the industry has only increased, exacerbating the issues we face as a society. The more concentrated the media industry becomes, the more it suppresses diverse opinions and serves the powerful elite. Sagan would argue that these attempts to limit diversity of thought would be much less effective in a scientifically literate society. If we could think critically about the information we are fed by the media, or about the other ways the established elite try to maintain their power, we might be able to change things for the better.

Upholding Democracy With Science

Sagan claims that science and democracy go hand in hand. Thus, a general understanding of science is necessary for a democratic society to succeed. Science and democracy share many principles (free exchange of information, self-criticism, objectivity, open debate). Like science, democratic political systems strive to become better through trial and error. Government and its policies are, in effect, wide-scale social experiments. Science and democracy, though, are more than just compatible: They depend on each other. Without the freedom provided by a democratic system, science can’t flourish. Without the critical thinking and openness to debate encouraged by science, democracy falls apart.

For democracy to work, the citizenry must be well-informed and involved in the political process. The people must willingly listen to opposing views and construct counter-arguments based on verifiable evidence and data. They must be able to tell the difference between pseudoscience and science, between well-founded and fallacious arguments. There must be a strict separation between religious beliefs and government policy, for a religion-based government is much more likely to impose its beliefs on others or persecute them for believing in something else. If we wish to maintain our democratic ideals and freedoms, we must educate ourselves in science, fund its development, and take heed of its warnings.

Scientific Democrats: Social Good Through Science

The interdependence between scientific and democratic ideals can be seen throughout history. Many argue that the ideas brought forth by the Scientific Revolution directly led to the democratic movements of the 18th century. In the late 19th century, a few American academics began to argue that the nation could best serve its political system by expanding its scientific institutions.

Known as scientific democrats, this small group believed they could harness the proven powers of science to improve social organizations in an increasingly industrialized society. The scientific democrats wanted to restore the intellectual freedoms that allow individuals to participate effectively in a democratic system. Like Sagan, the scientific democrats believed universal access to science would protect the public not only from making poor collective decisions, but also from being controlled or manipulated by the knowledgeable few.

Ways to Increase Science Literacy

A key argument of The Demon-Haunted World is that a scientifically literate public will greatly benefit society. Therefore, Sagan argues we must increase awareness and appreciation of science in the education system and in the general public. We can do this by increasing public funding of scientific research, as well as by communicating the discoveries, principles, and wonders of science in the classroom.

Improving Science Education

Many of the problems we encounter today are a result of a lack of critical and skeptical thinking. Sagan argues that the issues are systemic and begin in the classroom. There will be no single solution to the problems in our education system. It will take an extensive, collective effort to make sure our society is better educated and more scientifically literate. For various reasons, children are often discouraged from learning science, critical thinking, and the application of skepticism. This can lead to a general public with a disinterest, or even distaste, for science. When we don’t teach our children the methods of science, we take away our ability to manage our future.

(Shortform note: In The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan bemoans the lack of scientific and mathematical literacy in the United States, especially when compared to other countries. A recent study found that while the US has improved in math and science proficiency since the book was published, we still lag behind many other countries. As recently as 2017, in a test of 71 countries, the United States finished 38th in math and 24th in science.)

How to Instill Enthusiasm for Science

According to Sagan, a key first step in improving our scientific education is to encourage a zeal for learning and present science as the awe-inspiring field that it is. To keep students enthused about science, Sagan gives some practical advice:

• Provide more funding for science education, especially for teachers’ training and salaries.
• Make sure children get hands-on experience with the scientific method, not just read about it in a textbook and memorize it.
• Examine what keeps kids’ attention and build curricula around it.
• Encourage kids to be ambitious and curious.

If we wish to increase scientific literacy, we must not only give students the tools for critical thinking and problem-solving: We must inspire them to passionately apply these tools in their daily lives.

Teaching Science’s Value

While Sagan’s suggestions of investing more money in teachers, giving students more hands-on experience, and building curricula around students’ curiosity are great places to start, these actions may not be enough to keep kids interested in science. Researchers have found that many students decide not to take the more difficult science and math classes when they reach upper grade levels. Like Sagan, these researchers suggest that making math and science more enjoyable is the easiest way to increase science uptake. However, once a child has decided they don’t like science or that they aren’t good at math, it can be difficult to change their minds.

If you can’t convince children that science is fun, another relatively simple solution to this problem is to convince them that it is valuable. If a student believes a class is important for their future, they will be more likely to take it, even if they don’t enjoy it. Parents, teachers, and school administrators can help students see the value in math and science courses. Simply talking with children can do the trick, but sharing research on the financial benefits of science education will also help.

Increasing Funding for Scientific Research

Another significant area in which America, and most other countries, could improve is in the funding of basic scientific research. Basic research, as opposed to applied research, is scientific research with no short-term purpose in mind. With basic research, scientists are free to follow their curiosity, study what interests them, and seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Sagan argues that this type of research is not just important to scientists—it benefits all of society. Most major scientific discoveries were made possible by basic research.

Despite the historical precedence of the importance of basic research, there is a growing trend in the federal government to spend less money on its funding. At the time of The Demon-Haunted World’s publication, research funding by both the private and public sectors was in decline, while the government’s military budget, much to Sagan’s chagrin, was over $300 billion. The funding of scientific research, he argues, is much more important to humanity than the funding of the military. What Sagan fears is that this decline in government-subsidized research will continue, and innovation, beneficial scientific discoveries, and the public interest in science will decline as a result.

Data Check: Government Spending on Basic Research Versus Military

While the US government’s funding of basic research has increased since 2000, the proportion of basic research by the federal government has declined. Furthermore, for the first time in decades, the federal government no longer funds the majority of basic research in the United States. Most basic research is now done by pharmaceutical companies or other corporations, as they hope the research will result in new drugs, products, or technologies that will generate profits.

In 2019, total research and development funding reached about $650 billion, with the federal government only accounting for around $140 billion of that total. Meanwhile, the US military and defense budget ballooned to $731 billion in 2019. The disturbing trend Sagan noticed in the 1990s has continued well into the 21st century.