/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2327186]

From what I understand this guy was looked down upon in some scientific circles.

What were some of the reasons why?
Also, I see the merit in a someone who popularizes science for the general public. Especially astronomy- Cosmos captivated me despite it's entry level content.

[Anonymous No.2327190]

Probably cause he was obsessed with aliens.

[Anonymous No.2327189]

He was a dreamer rather than an actual scientist.

[Anonymous No.2327194]

>>2327189
That is exactly was it was

\thread

[Anonymous No.2327208]

>>2327189
says an unaccomplished neckbeard on /sci/

oh /sci/, you never fail to amuse me

[Anonymous No.2327211]

>>2327189
Yep, that is the answer

\thread

[Anonymous No.2327217]

>>2327208
I'd actually be more surprised about truth being on /sci/ rather than uneducated stupidity.
Uneducated idiocy is /sci/'s order for the day.

[Anonymous No.2327218]

I have no idea, but it makes some sense. There's always a group of a dicks ready to shit on someone's parade.

But the guy is loved by others like Feyman and Hawking. I wouldn't worry about it. Nothing wrong with being a dreamer. He was a very scientific philosopher, or a philosophic scientist, whichever way you'd like to put it. He WASN'T full of shit, which is what matters to me. There was hard science behind everything he said on the mass-media stage.

[Anonymous No.2327222]

some of Cosmos was very speculative, but I never got the sense that Sagan was a total crackpot.

Do you guys think there is any place for figures like Sagan, and is there any merit at all to keeping the public interested in science?

[Anonymous No.2327232]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Scientific_advocacy

He was trying to get people interested in science. True scientists do not like this, as it lessens their isolation from "normals." Sagan was deliberately breaking down barriers that have taken literal millennia to build. For this he was assassinated, by a man unironically dressed as a pot plant.

[Anonymous No.2327235]

Carl Sagan is the honerary president of the Technocratic Republic of /Sci/ at the moment, at least until we get some physical land for our new country and figure out voting, so he MUST be awesome.

[Anonymous No.2327238]

>>2327189
>Athiest are all dreamers...

[Anonymous No.2327239]

>>2327232

[Anonymous No.2327244]

Because picture related. More so in fact, because Feynman actually WAS an accomplished scientist.

[Anonymous No.2327247]

>>2327239
Last line didn't tip you off, did it?

[Anonymous No.2327248]

He's the bill nye of astrophysics.

[Anonymous No.2327254]

Science, especially complicated shit like astrophysics, is, oh, yeah, complicated. It takes a deal of intelligence to comprehend the ideas behind some of the deeper concepts of the various fields of science. This gives science its "nerdy" air. When kids are nerdy in school, they get picked on, because no one cares that they are smart. But after school, when everyone realizes that intelligence generally creates prosperity, the nerdy kids excel. In science for example. They put on airs, and stuff. Some of them, I mean. Not all scientists are the same, they are all just people.

When someone like Carl Sagan comes along and starts telling people about their secret cool knowledge, it deflates them. Which is why he is looked down upon. Making things like astrophysics "popular" made them seem less "sciencey" and less profound, perhaps, to some people, because now everybody and his brother is talking about the big red spot on Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.2327260]

>>2327247
bingo


maybe it was a dumb question, meh I guess I had a Sagan bone when I started the thread. The feeling has passed for now.

[Anonymous No.2327269]

>>2327232
Paracelsus was doing that centuries before, if not for him and copernicus then the next generation would have been more dogmatic and fundamental.
Paracelsus gave lecture in german so the common man could benefit from his advances

[Anonymous No.2327275]

>>2327248
Who's bill nye?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2327285]

>>2327235
Sounds good.
>4011AD, Saganism is a religion and humanity has spread far and wide with a secular humanist philosophy

[Anonymous No.2327300]

normally I'm agnostic and level headed, but I could actually see myself getting into a religion like that. Essentially pantheism with a figure to back it up.

But then blurring the line between science and religion just seems like such a bad idea

[Anonymous No.2327388]

It's interesting how this man made a television series, that has so far been completely unparalleled in terms of it's "awesome power to generate --bbbiillions of viewers".

It's not for the lack of trying. There are sooo many shows out there, that attempt to do what Sagan did. Even nowadays, people who succeed momentarily in popularizing something, is referred to as "Doing a Sagan".

There's just noone who quite succeeded in making something as good as he did. Cosmos not only captivated the viewers at the time, it still captivates whoever watches it today, in spite of it being really damn old. Think about it, how many old documentaries do we actually see? The only other documentary from that time I have seen is "The Ascent of Man", which is also brilliant by the way.

But I think Sagan had a unique talent. He was able to be poetic, yet realistic. He could convey relatively hard scientific concepts, in a way that most people were able to grasp them. He would teach people in a way that made them feel they were his equal, and in a way that made them feel inspired and smart.

He was also a genius. I know a lot of people will judge someones intelligence based on their scientific achievements, but that's not all there is to it. Sagan clearly had a lot of common knowledge. The Cosmos series for instance, is filled with all kinds of different topics, that he appears to already know a lot about. Take the episode on the Egyptian hieroglyphs, or the one on the human brain. He clearly had a huge repetoir of knowledge somewhere in his mind, that he could call upon to make a coherent and awe-inspiring whole.

[Anonymous No.2327690]

>>2327235
>>2327285
Tasmania is 62,409 square kilometres, and the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million (2 cents/acre), roughly $134.4 million today. Now, Tasmania is more valuable than Alaska so I'd say rather than 2 cents per acre we'll give it 100 dollars per hectare (average worth of land in Australia), thats 1 dollar per square kilometer, or $62,409.

[Anonymous No.2327706]

>>2327690
Sources:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/00b077a78d3ae4c0ca256fd9001
dfb93!OpenDocument

http://www.brandtasmania.com/show.php?ACT=Public&menu_code=100.1100

[Anonymous No.2329379]

>>2327690
km^2 = 100 ha, at $100/ha that would be $624 million

[Anonymous No.2329410]

Maybe because it's fucking stupid to make fun of Christians when you expect people to hang on your every word about mere thoughts can shift the space time continueium down a path of destruction.

9/11 happened because someone played rock music too loudly.

[Anonymous No.2329568]

A teacher made me watch most of "Cosmos" in High School. I thought it was stupid because this guy says how glad he is that he has science and doesn't have to live in a world full of mysticism and superstition, but then goes on about how looking at the stars can tell us about ourselves. Recently, though, I rewatched the series. and realized that everything he says is backed up by skeptical scientific investigation. All he does is presents objectively true statements and tries to express the wonder they inspire. I wouldn't say he's a god like most other /sci/entists, but the show is definitely worth watching =D It's on hulu, btw