/sci/ - Science & Math

Who is Carl Sagan?

>>1950147

welcome to USA

>high school
oh you

HE was a popsci faggot, he ruins science by dumbing his explanations for the laypeople. He does not deserve any recognition, the junkie bastard.

billions and billions of people don't know who Carl Sagan is

badumtss.jpg

>>1950169
Because he wasn't a pretentious faggot who needed to prove how smart he was by making complicated equations or using exaggerated vocabulary.

>>1950147
Shit even my archaeology teacher put Sagan's name on a test, where it had no business.

>>1950169
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

>>1950178
troll harder

>>1950178
>>1950178
What the fuck do you mean "pretentious?" Dumbing anything down for morons is pretentious. Oversimplifying explanations is conceited. Both of which makes science die slowly.

>>1950198
Teaching the public approximations of the truth is so much better than not teaching them anything at all.

>>1950210
No it's not, it dilutes science and takes credibility from scientists and people studying science and gives them to retards that just parrot what someone says, thinking they know it, but do not. It takes away credibility recognition from people who have studied it in every detail, the people who deserve this knowledge and to be credited for it, not plebeians.

>>1950222
You want they to start physics with full theories?

You know, like the quantum dynamical relativistic theory that require a computer to solve almost all situations?

You need stepping stones in the learning process. Teach it to them like we have discovered it.

>>1950222
Credibility? More like you'll lose a small part of your superficial ego. You see yourself as a future scientist and you just want people to look up to you. You're wrong that pop sci takes away from scientist's credibility; it brings down science from "mixing chemicals and making equations" (that's what some fucking creationist said to Dawkins once), or just asking you to "send money and shut up!" (Raegan?), to something interesting, that deserves funding, and that should be embraced. Moreover, people who read, say, Dawkins books, have a much better concept of evolution than others. They know it's not about the species surviving, and humans aren't the pinnacle of evolution.

>>1950147
your teacher is right. carl sagan was a camwhore faggot.

fuck cosmos, if i want a cake i buy it in the store, fuck the universe

>>1950222
bah. i understand your point, as (some)creationists are unable to see that they are only refuting analogies and simplifications, but for the most part, every science and every discipline except mathematics are simplifications and approximations. Even a lot of mathematics is based around making good and simple approximations for complex problems.

but insisting on using general relativity for the usual square block on inclined plane thing. and a variyng g constant over a few meters are all nescessary for the "most correct" picture.

But simplified models are nescessery both to be able to explain and understand what is going on, and making useful predictions. otherwise timing a ball drop from a roof would be an impossible task.