Carl Sagan, in the end of his life, suggested psi deserves serious study

omegablue

Unregistered
O
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
599
Wow, now that is exciting.

Reading one of Dean Radin´s books, The Conscious Universe, I´ve stumbled upon the following report in the introduction of the book (pages 2 and 3):

In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism ,the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his lifelong mission of educating the public about science in this case debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith healers, the "face" of Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph among 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:

"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my oppinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone human can (barely) affect random numer generators in computers: (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

Will you friends help me investigating which Sagan´s book is that, and if this is true or not, and if it is, why is this fact being practically concealed from the public? Just to remember, Sagan died in December 20, 1996. If it is like Radin reports, this declaration was within one of his latest publications.
 
Last edited:
Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan....Astonishing how many "deathbed recantations" are out there. :rolleyes:

Check out this page on skepdic.com. Basically, this is the worst sort of taking a quote out of context:

We try. Sometimes we fail, but this is not one of those times. Here is the part of the passage from Sagan that Radin quotes:
At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302).
​
Radin calls this "an astonishing admission" and goes on to crow about "other signs of shifting opinions" regarding the reality of psi phenomena "cropping up with increasing frequency in the scientific literature."

However, immediately after the quote in question, Sagan writes: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." He then goes on to relate how in the mid-1970s he found himself unable to sign a manifesto called "Objections to Astrology" not because he thought astrology has any validity, but "because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian." Sagan was not admitting anything about the likely reality of psi phenomena. He was merely being Sagan: No claim should be dismissed out-of-hand or rejected because it seems absurd or stupid, or because of the motivations, scientific qualifications, or moral character of its proponents. Claims should be accepted or rejected only if the evidence warrants it. Sagan was simply defending the view that a good skeptic must be open-minded. He is not saying that any of these three claims is true or probably true. He is stating the claims as those who believe them would state them and he is saying they deserve "serious study," that is, they should not be dismissed out-of-hand. He said the same thing about astrology.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it, Cleon. I've just finished re-reading this, and remember the particular passage. Of course by quote mining an entirely different viewpoint seems to have been made.

When I become dictator this book will be required reading for EVERY person....period.
 
Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped.

But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments.

He distinguish his oppinion from fact:

oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid.
facts: there is at least a few experimental support.

conclusion: this deserves serious study.

Wow, this is being skeptic, truly.

Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.
Click to expand...

If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as.
 
That book was one of the many factors in me getting my sh** together. It's a great read.
 
Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions.

Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away.

Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book. :)
 
omegablue said:
Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped.

But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments.

He distinguish his oppinion from fact:

oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid.
facts: there is at least a few experimental support.

conclusion: this deserves serious study.

Wow, this is being skeptic, truly.

If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's all marvellous, but it's not quite the same as this post:

omegablue said:
There is already a huge ammount of supporting evidence for telepathy and ESP, that for some reasons which remains mostly unknown, they are all rejected, mocked or forced to be forgotten.
Click to expand...

So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"?
 
ChrisC said:
Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions.

Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away.

Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book. :)
Click to expand...

Be sure to get Dawkin's new one too (if you haven't). It is well-written, and thought provoking.
 
It isn't often we see a new trick from the tricksters. This is an old trick that gets dusted off from time to time, in the vain hope that someone haven't seen it before.

For some reason, they think they can get away with it, even right here on this forum:

T'ai Chi said:
Mark, a lot of them pick and choose from what Sagan wrote.

Sagan said that one of the only borderland studies worth examining are the random number generator ones, which I thought was interesting, something which a lot of people here dismiss.
Click to expand...

Of course, such fraud is quickly revealed.
 
It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ?
 
Lothian said:
Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ?
Click to expand...

I'll take door number two please Bob.

Just reading DHW myself and was initially shocked to read the paragraph in question. Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them. Great book though; really explains scepticism as a something that can be balanced with "open-mindedness" and needn't be aggressive. Then again he really had a downer on elements of popular culture that he doesn't seem to have fully understood; famously the X-Files, but also Beavis and Butthead! Had he watched the latter I would hope he'd realise that it was a form of social commentary on the very phenomenon (lazy uncritical thought, poor education) he saw it as promoting. Perhaps it did, for those too young or otherwise unable to see past the toilet humour.
 
Big Les said:
Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them.
Click to expand...

You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it.

BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.
Click to expand...

Here, T'ai Chi tries to separate skepticism from science (oh, sorry: Science). He wants skeptics to be seen as people who are not doing science:

T'ai Chi said:
Nope, skepticism is not science no matter how much one wishes.
Click to expand...

True to form, he has argued the exact opposite before:

T'ai Chi said:
The best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism?

I'd say by encouraging people to study science.
Click to expand...

T'ai Chi said:
The best thing in my opinion that one can do to promote critical thinking and skepticism is to study both sides of an issue, which includes also recognizing the assumptions in science.
Click to expand...

T'ai Chi is a very confused young man.
 
Beady said:
You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it.

BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?
 
Big Les said:
Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?
Click to expand...


It was published about 10 years ago, things move on. It is very unlikely that Sagan would, for instance, still be saying that there was something in the random number generator effect idea since the major studies have concluded that there is no effect.

The OP quote is being used as a false appeal to authority.
 
Big Les said:
Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?
Click to expand...

At the time they hadn't been show to be conclusively false, and they were sufficiently fringe like phenomena that Sagan didn't feel they could be ruled out.
Since then things have moved on, PEAR's negative result and subsequent shut-down has ruled the effect of the mind on random number generation.

And by serious study, Sagan just meant legitimate study by actual scientists rather than the existing new age spin, and not that large amounts of resources should be pumped into the exploration of the field.
 
Fair enough; thanks for the clarification. It's interesting that the subject title of this thread should be so similar to the old myth about Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Believers really will try anything to lend legitimacy to their nonsense.
 
The Atheist said:
So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"?
Click to expand...

The evidence is there and everywhere for anyone to dismiss or accept based on what criteria one use to be convinced that something is going on. All the meta-analyses of the experiments that are being conducted for more than a century points out that there is a real effect other than chance and design flaws, file-drarwer effect and other known possible problems that could decrease the confidence on the results. In fact the claims that the tighter the controls , the dimmer the results seem to be plausible at some extent. But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more.

So the point is not whether there is huge evidence or not, but how different people with different points of view and beliefs react to and accept these results. One can whine and bitch about the methods in particularly any way, based on his/her creativity and skills in rhetoric, or simply based on what they want to accept or not. Note that this can even be exaggerated to the point where you cannot say one is doing science anymore, but making science to behave like one´s intentions, beliefs or hopes. The evidence convinced many people (like Sagan) that something was going on, and it was not due to chance, nor the other factors cited above, because increasing and increasing the controls the results (this extended to the period beyond /Sagan´s death though), the results maintained way higher than expected by chance. Since I could not find anything serious and truly scientific debunking these experiments other than general moaning and claiming by exaggerated skeptics I have to agree with Sagan, that this deserves further and serious studies, apart from our oppinions and hopes about the truth behind these effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom