This book is a diatribe by its author against the preference of U.S. citizens for what he regarded as demonology (e.g., religion, astrology, UFO's), as well as their increasing rejection of the solid world of scientific values, the reproducible experiment, reliable thermodynamics, and the banner holder, Einstein.

Sagan thought that a mighty effort should be made, nationally, to drag Americans out of the morass of unsound values, ridiculous beliefs in such scams as telepathy, homeopathy, dowsing, and (of course) anything to do with organized religion.

Sagan gives evidence that Americans are stupid compared with Canadians or British and indeed, the citizens of some 14-15 other nations. They come 17th or 18th in the yearly intellectual competitions. Only half of the population accepts that the earth goes around the sun; they can see the converse any sunny day. A recent popular movie is called "Dumb and Dumber." Being good at anything intellectual in high school earns one the title of "nerd." Continuation of the growth of antiscience and the replacement of validated science by all these new ideas cannot be right and will obviously give rise to the demise of America.

In spite of Sagan casting himself as the St. George of Science, a number of the views he held will surprise scientists, certainly the younger ones, and may shock some members of the Society for Scientific Exploration.

Religion and Spiritual Beliefs

These are cast down "as very difficult to prove." As an example of a proof, Sagan suggests that if Hoyle's view of continuous creation could be sustained (no Big Bang), the universe would have had no beginning and there would be no need for a Creator God.

This might be true. But the disappointing part - and it becomes a pattern - is that the scientific evidence for "something greater" does exist but is kept out of Sagan's account. Perhaps a clear cut "Proof of God" may escape the intellectual approach, but the experimental method has been applied to the efficacy of prayer, and it seems most unscientific to leave out a reference to the work of Dossey (1993) which gives descriptions of scientific measurements on the effects of prayer (in which there is good evidence for a positive effect on cardiac patients in well controlled modern U. S. experiments).

Sensitives

In the book, Sagan calls sensitives witches, and takes the attitude that any reality behind what they are said to do is too ridiculous to justify dismissal. He uses the section concerning them to enhance one of his main themes, the terrible consequences of an ascendent Church, giving the most detailed description I have read of its methods of prosecution and torture¹, leading inexorably to the burning alive of thousands accused (by gossip only sometimes) of extra-sensory activity.

This is a very effective red herring to avoid facing the extensive scientific effort - now a century old - to substantiate the reality of the feats of sensitives. The latest is surely the much published work of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne at Princeton University (Jahn & Dunne, 1987) on the ability of some operatives to affect the output of a random event generator by concentration thereon. These are impeccably managed experiments with strong statistics.

Dowsing

Sagan's book states that dowsing is a non-effect, that it just cannot be, that it is fraud - water does not radiate. However, he fails to cite Christopher Bird's massive volume (1993) relating a wealth of dowsing experiments, with very extensive verification. Dowsers not only detect underground water but also metal deposits. Is this just hearsay? No. But the trouble is, it does not fit the paradigm of physics in the 1990s, hence it is presented as fraud or faulty observation - even though the observations have been going on for 2000 years.

Homeopathy

Homeopathy claims effects from preparations in which no molecules of the active agent are present at all! The reader does not need to be told what Sagan says of this!

But, surely, if Sagan was this White Knight of Science (and a member of a committee to show up the sham behind paranormal events) he ought to have been in touch with Benveniste, and the recent London experiments with homeopathy. I was called about them earlier in the year. A professor of engineering from King's College, University of London, told me how a verification had been obtained; there was even a critical proving experiment devised and carried out successfully.

Telepathy

Once I had gotten the drift of Sagan's viewpoint, I was not surprised at his rejection of so many phenomena with which present physics cannot deal. But that he rejects telepathy too, did shock me. There is not only detailed modern work funded by the Russian Government but also the poll of British scientists, some 25% of whom attest an acceptance of the fact of telepathy. (Evans, 1973) Consider also the research on remote viewing by Targ and Puthoff (1977).

Here, in the section on telepathy, I think one gets an entry into the way Sagan thought and why such thinking was so far removed from reality. He opines that, were there evidence for telepathy, there would be a huge rush of scientists to embrace it. Indeed not so! Very unfortunately, the indications from history are all the other way. The Wrights flew their plane up and down and around over two main highways and a railroad track for five years. No one took any notice. It is clear as to why. Those who saw this large object in the air were in an older paradigm which said heavier than air machines cannot fly. Or, more recently, take John Maddox's attacks in Nature on Benveniste, who dared to claim something that many consider outrageous - that medical effects could be obtained although the molecules supposed to cause them were no longer there!

So there it is: the tragic epitome of the viewpoint of many scientists, "if it does not fit the present (always temporary) theory, it isn't so." Anyone who suggests that it is the other way around should contemplate the examples given above and also other examples in Sagan's book.

The contents of the book present a good example of the technique of denigration. One first gives a hefty thump against the detested anomaly (e.g., 100 years of UFO observations), contemptuously declaring the 2% of the US population which believes it has been abducted as suffering from hallucinations, and then (just as the knowledgeable reader is forming his "Ah, - but...") slams home an association with tabloid ridiculousness (e.g., "Captain of the Titanic, found on iceberg, awaiting rescue.") "There!" he implies - "you see."

One aspect of the book, the attacks on the authority of the Catholic Church and all the suffering it caused, merits specific comments. Is it not now reasonable to see the authoritative priest of the medieval time replaced by scientists of the authoritative type well represented by the recently deceased author? And as to punishment - no, you do not get burned to death any more. But if you come with new ideas (say, in a university setting), and these ideas are not linear extensions from the present paradigm, you may be declared to be doing "bad science," and the Personnel and Tenure Committee may throw you out. Or, if tenured, say, with a team, your papers may be refused publication (with the comment, "this is not really sound work"). Indeed, in the Catholic Church, the accepted document has to be stamped: "Nihil obstat." What is the difference between that and the referee's acceptance of your paper? For he, of course, will be in paradigm (for which read "one of the present Faith").

The author may have been selective when he suppresses information, but he shows a depth of study on many items, some of which are outside the main theme, as in the description of the techniques used in the medieval Church's fight to suppress "heresy" (i.e., new ideas). In the last eight chapters of the book there is much, too, of admirable stuff as to how we might jump start a greater interest in science in the USA. He suggests we might pay students who study it an extra stipend, a technique used with success in the former Soviet Union. But he does not shine a light on the reason for lack of interest: it is the epitome of America - the culture of pleasure and instant gratification, which leads students to choose easy causes and takes attention away from those causes needing effort.

But perhaps the greatest effect of a book showing so much lack of comprehension of the new is in the counter-reaction it is likely to bring. So, the tabloids and the popular press do portray a lot of nonsense from the scientific point of view, and I at once accept that not every popular astrologer, in it as a business, is scrupulous in making his proclamations arise from the rules of astrology rather than his common-sense evaluation of his client.

But if it is really true, as the book brings out, that such a large number of undeniable phenomena (telepathy, dowsing, the experience of those who die and are resuscitated) offer present science facts for which it has utterly no clue, then, maybe, it is time to stop yelling fraud, sober up, and take a good hard look at the basics of consciousness and our relation to the world we experience. And that, indeed, should lead to the next paradigm, for, as Sagan's book tacitly implies, the present scientific world view is gradually becoming harder to sustain.

¹One method of finding who else in the village might be suspect was to put the alleged miscreant's foot in an iron boot and pour in molten lead

John O'M. Bockris
Department of Chemistry
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3255

References

Bird, C. (1993). The Divining Hand. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Press.

Dossey, L. (1993). Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine. San Francisco: Harper.

Evans, C. (1973). Parapsychology - What the questionnaire revealed. New Scientist, 57, 209.

Jahn, R. G., & Dunne, B. J. (1987). Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Targ, R. G. & Puthoff, H. (1977). Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. New York: Delacorte Press/Eleanor Friede.

---

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

by Carl Sagan
New York: Random House, 1995, 457 + xviii pp. $25.95(c). ISBN 0-394-53512-X.

Opinions about Sagan run the gamut from disdain by science observers like Jeremy Bernstein and a National Academy of Sciences that will not elect him, through profusely respectful groups like physics teachers and CSICOP who lavish him with praise and awards. What one thinks of this book will also depend strongly on one's own viewpoint. Heartfelt attempts like Sagan's to arouse interest in science, to combat superstition and silliness, and to be intellectually rigorous and honest make inevitable certain compromises that are bound to strike the one group or the other as unwarranted.

The book is a strange mixture: well argued in places, but superficial and sophomoric in others: it deals with science and with anomalies, but it is also replete with socio-political opining of the politically correct flavor. The index is comprehensive, but the bibliography is quite inadequate for checking quotes and generalizations in the text. While in several ways it is acknowledged that much of the material has appeared elsewhere, the reader is not helped to discover exactly what was published where and when.

Sagan's reputation would be best served if readers who are serious about anomalies begin with Chapter 17, "The Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder," go on to Chapter 18, and then turn to Chapters 4 to 10 inclusive.

The less said about the other chapters, the better for Sagan and the publishers, who should bear most of the blame - they, after all, had contracted with him years ago for a series of books, for straightforward commercial reasons and not on the basis of a substantive plan outlining material that deserved publication. Good copy-editors would surely have caught most of the logical non- sequiturs or contradictions that abound in chapters that read like stream-of-consciousness dictation. Thus in Chapter 1 (p. 4), "the ocean keeps many secrets" followed immediately by "there isn't a trace of oceanographic or geophysical support for Atlantis and Lemuria."

In uncountable places the author(s) postulate(s) that everyone shares their emotional and intellectual passions, e.g. "so much in real science... [is] exciting." Someone is sympathized with for "never [having been] taught... how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation," a trick that no one has yet been taught including those who read this book from cover to cover. "If it were widely understood that claims to knowledge require adequate evidence before they can be accepted, there would be no room for pseudoscience," (p. 6) is hardly adequate enough instruction. Tired scientific shibboleths are repeated throughout the book, how "perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant about global warming [etc., etc.]" (p. 7), how dangerous if everyone doesn't share Sagan's views on science, politics, and all else. Naive anti-religious sentiments abound: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is [no mean feat!] than to persist in delusion [but how to avoid that?] (p. 12)"; "to entertain the notion that we are a particularly complex arrangement of atoms, and not some breath of divinity, at the very least enhances our [what, everybody's?] respect for atoms" (p. 13). Quite often after such silly generalizations, Sagan puts in a qualification, e.g. "although there's no reason why religions have to play that role." (p. 15) But this putting together of opposing thought-bites does not amount to a useful discussion.

In some places, the book's carelessness makes it downright misleading, for example, that "Under Communism, both religion and pseudoscience were systematically suppressed." (p. 17) What about Lysenko? What about the strictures against quantum mechanics? What about the paeans to Stalin and Party as guides to correct science?

"The devil is in the details," and the book is replete with errors of fact, over-simplifications, opinion stated as fact, and the like. But enough about the book's inadequacies.

Sagan's heart is clearly in the right place, about science, education and society in general. The Preface has him at his most disarming: open about the personal background that shaped his views; slipping in the occasional deep question: "How can you tell when someone is only imagining?" (xii); introducing the view expanded in Chapter 17, that science invokes "the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought" of skepticism and wonder (xiii). "Both... are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education... [By everyone,] stringent standards of evidence... should be applied with at least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity." (p. 306)

Sagan is clear that skeptics sometimes "wax superior and contemptuous... I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice." (p. 297) I suggest that much can be forgiven one who makes such an admission; and I was reminded of the respect Sagan earned years ago when, giving a splendid explanation, he refused to sign the authoritarian "Objections to Astrology" that sparked CSICOP's founding. (p. 302)

In Chapter 17, Sagan is open about the dilemma of how to deal with people who have deep-seated beliefs or faiths that one believes to be wrong: "Many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives - and are therefore themselves a kind of skepticism." (p. 300) "No stuffy dismissal by a gaggle of scientists makes contact with the social needs that astrology... addresses, and science does not." (304) "Mere skepticism is not enough." (p. 305)

He is open that "CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases such a critique is to some degree justified" that "It's hostile to every new idea... will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition." (p. 299)

Sagan also admits that what is called pseudo-science might not be pseudo: "Perhaps one percent of the time, someone who has an idea that smells, feels and looks indistinguishable from the usual run of pseudoscience will turn out to be right." (p. 302) "Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanisms can be mistaken." (p. 303)

With those credentials, the book's discussions of anomalies in Chapters 4 to 10 ought to be respected. Chapter 4 ("Aliens"), Chapter 5 ("Spoofing and Secrecy") and Chapter 6 ("Hallucinations") are well argued, though of course they will displease some because Sagan's opinion is that we have not (yet) come into contact. Sagan disagrees with most ufologists as to the likelihood that any UFO observations cannot be explained in mundane ways; though he is "perfectly prepared to believe that at least some UFO reports and analyses, and perhaps voluminous files, have been made inaccessible to the public... It's time for the files to be declassified and made generally available." (p. 88) Chapter 7, "The Demon-Haunted World," will be relatively uncontroversial since few contemporary anomalists believe in a reality of traditional demons. Many will agree with much in Chapter 8, "On the Distinction Between True and False Visions" - especially of course on the generalities while sometimes disagreeing on their application to specific instances such as abductions.

Chapter 9, "Therapy," and 10, "The Dragon in My Garage," completes the list of chapters that serious anomalists might do well to peruse. Sagan says he has known John Mack for many years. Taking his patients' "stories at face value is not the only option available" (p. 185). "What Mack really means when he talks about beings from other dimensions is that... he hasn't the foggiest notion of what they are." (p. 183) "The main challenge posed by Mack's cases is the old one of how to teach critical thinking more broadly and more deeply in a society - conceivably even including Harvard professors of psychiatry - awash in gullibility" (p. 184). No indubitable bit of extra-terrestrial or super-human knowledge or technology has been proffered by abductees: "These failures must tell us something." (p. 186) "Their absence must tell us something." (p. 187)

Sagan can be incisive, clear-headed, fair-minded; I wish those qualities could be applied to the whole book rather than to only a third of its chapters.

Henry H. Bauer
Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247

Table of Contents | JSE Home Page