Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Vinyl_Avarice t1_j24wk40 wrote

Inspiring and educating. Cosmos the book was a life changer. Great voice and cadence too.

46

LegoMyAlterEgo t1_j24wyvv wrote

I like to repeat his line

"We're here so the Universe can know itself"

A lot of people on reddit dislike this quote tho

41

HippieInDisguise2_0 t1_j24zik5 wrote

Hmm odd that reddit wouldn't like it. Alan watts said similar things about perception

6

lookingforrealtruth2 t1_j2565ne wrote

Logically that is false if anyone else exist; person A isn't person B.

So just perhaps are not all alone. Technically any person only 'knew' their own experience, and so just perhaps there is another person that has their own experience and not all is known by only a single individual - I typing this message I could be all alone for all I know, seeing my own shadows, however maybe you really are there.

Maybe what see as 'energy' 'matter' are literally what any person look like, like a 'rock' comprised of many people's very existences. Like zoom into someone's brain and the person perhaps appear as electricity moving down a neuron, keep zooming into them as electricity and slowing things down around maybe eventually end up seeing them appear as a 'black hole' and perhaps seeing space and stuff like stars around for example - like 'slowing things down' some relativity thing. Stuff like gravity for example perhaps can explain by the very act of someone 'knowing' their own experience.

So, maybe not all alone.

−2

dbpf t1_j24xykj wrote

Top 5 on my "people to smoke a blunt with" list

25

TheBuschels t1_j24ydvq wrote

Out of curiosity, who are the other four?

8

xenogi t1_j250e92 wrote

I'm not OP but my four would be, Alan Watts, Dimebag Darrell, Abraham Lincoln and Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten.

5

TheBuschels t1_j251qpl wrote

Interesting list for sure. Mine (not including Sagan) would be, my mom, Stephen King, Gary Oldman, and Rick Rubin

2

dbpf t1_j251r8k wrote

Whoa dude, you, me, Jesus, and the Pharoah would be an insane sesh

2

xenogi t1_j2523ej wrote

For sure. Next time I see those guys, I'll give you a call.

3

dbpf t1_j24zrju wrote

Chomsky, Rogan (Seth, but Joe if he isn't down), Jesus, and pretty much literally anyone else who is down after that

2

TheJazzButter t1_j24xm71 wrote

He is a hero to me, and I consider him to be one of the most evolved human beings to have existed.

24

Guiver5000 t1_j24xewv wrote

Really like Sagan, great voice, inspiring, video days in high school science class.

His protege Neil however is starting to become tiresome. Last couple years, started out the same and I think his fame went to his head. He also should be banned from social media.

13

WirelessEthernett t1_j24xtbw wrote

i don’t see any reason for banning him of social media, aside from his dumb posts he isn’t hurting anyone. he’s definitely gotten hard to listen to recently. i think he got famous mostly because of his smooth voice and cadence, but once people realized the stuff he was saying was common knowledge the magic kinda went away

9

kateinoly t1_j2500c0 wrote

I think you overestimate "common knowledge."

6

WirelessEthernett t1_j2538e6 wrote

true, maybe not common knowledge it just bugs me when he says something like it’s the most profound thing ever and everybody should be in awe.

then tweets that lunar eclipses are nothing special

1

DriveExtra2220 t1_j25515v wrote

I loved Sagans calming voice and speaking cadence. I like Neil but find him a little jarring after so much time. I love Jim Al-Khalili and think it’s the closest to Sagan.

1

RoachBeBrutal t1_j24yso2 wrote

Brilliantly and effectively communicated the awesomeness and mystery of the cosmos. A national treasure.

9

PaulsRedditUsername t1_j250hhv wrote

He's the Bob Ross of science. Calm, inspiring, awesome and educational. His old Cosmos show is still way better than Tyson's attempt to recreate it.

Plus he was a big ol' pothead, which is fun. I imagine getting baked with Carl Sagan would be an evening to remember.

5

Foolgazi t1_j250wxe wrote

Haha, “Bob Ross of science,” perfect description

3

Gax63 t1_j250d2x wrote

No sure why anyone could have anything other than a positive opinion of Sagan.
Unless maybe Ken Ham or Joel Olstean is in the subreddit.

4

Soup89 t1_j24zdzj wrote

The GOAT. Can't stand degrass tyson, who thinks he's the new sagan

3

CasualEveryday t1_j2508mm wrote

In a lot of ways he is the Sagan of this generation. He's the most prominent science communicator in the US and has been for 15+ years. You're right, he's nowhere near as likeable or as humble as Sagan, though.

2

RootaBagel t1_j24zs52 wrote

I read every book, watched every show, and as many interviews I could find. You could say I like him a lot. Inspiring and life changing.

3

rabidpiano86 t1_j2505zh wrote

I liked the way he talked. He'd put enunciation in weird places and it was fun to listen to.

3

Temporary-Leather-52 t1_j253zw8 wrote

“Demon Haunted World” should be required reading in high school.

2

Redpythongoon t1_j256zpb wrote

He's my absolute hero. Demon Haunted World changed my life. My husband and I played the pale blue dot speech at our wedding

2

tzaeru t1_j250dow wrote

Sure, he was and continues to be a huge inspiration to me. Excellent communicator. Good researcher. Skeptical to the core.

1

ElJonJon86 t1_j2546h1 wrote

Eloquent, charismatic, inspiring. Armed with an arsenal of knowledge and a never ending hunger for more. Skeptical to the core.

He chose to use those capacities to educate and broaden the horizons of humankind. Showed many people the vast discoveries awaiting us as far as the eye could see (Literally).

What is there not to like? How many others out there with the same or similar capacities use them for self-indulgence, to gain power and fame, or to destroy, conquer and rule?

1

calcteacher t1_j24yf4c wrote

We was a good communicator. Decent scientist, but no high level research. I liked him.

−1

Belostoma t1_j253x71 wrote

>Decent scientist, but no high level research.

Wrong. You could arguably say that of Tyson, but certainly not Sagan. He had numerous highly cited, lead-authored publications in top journals, for example (not an exhausive list):

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.177.4043.52

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.276.5316.1217

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.206.4425.1363

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519373902166

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.173.3995.417

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103584900186?casa_token=-1h0Q6J_StsAAAAA:ppOvkzDw8pZatwQbK5geuP7lFRklAc7Q62fOgs1Hpz6agXTxNSNSFQ22fDyUoZdaRA4WuyuTjg

Even if he weren't remotely famous and hadn't written any popular books, he would easily be among the top 1 % of scientists in his field (planetary science) by traditional academic metrics. On top of that publication record, he was the director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell and one of the principal scientists on most of the major NASA planetary science missions of his day. You don't even need to add his incredibly important public-facing work to rank him among the most influential planetary scientists ever.

It sounds like you're trying to impress someone here by acting unimpressed with someone everyone else rightly idolizes. It's not working.

4

calcteacher t1_j25ek6p wrote

I am not wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. But I know you think you do. I'm a research scientist and I lived through his life. I understand you hate about somebody else who might know a little something so. Strange that you think I'm trying to impress somebody. I have no need for that. I'm just giving you my opinion. It's just one person's point of view.

1

Belostoma t1_j25n46c wrote

>I am not wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. But I know you think you do. I'm a research scientist and I lived through his life.

No, you're really very wrong here. Anyone who wants to follow this exchange beyond a "he-said she-said" can browse deeply through Sagan's record on Google Scholar, read about his roles in NASA's planetary science missions, and see for themselves.

However, as it happens, I'm also a research scientist, probably with more experience than you. I'm guessing you're still just a grad student or postdoc with an excessive ego. I'm sure I have more claim to have "lived through his life" than you. Sagan inspired me to go to Cornell and major in astronomy, where I worked as an undergrad in his old office (albeit only when meeting with my supervisor, whose office it was). I later did undergraduate research in radio astronomy for Yervant Terzian, the incredibly kind and brilliant man who hired Sagan at Cornell and held the same professorship Sagan did (David C Duncan Professor of Physical Sciences) at the time I worked for him.

I ended up switching to a different field that better fits the kind of day-to-day work I like to do (quantitative ecology), but I am highly familiar with Sagan's legacy and personally close to it. I know you're wrong, and I'm qualified to know.

1

tzaeru t1_j250a28 wrote

If high level research is only the stuff that has led to new inventions or new major discoveries about the universe, then it's only a very tiny fraction of all scientists.

Most scientists don't have as many papers and as often cited discoveries as Sagan does.

3

Belostoma t1_j2555yb wrote

Sagan did tons of research at the highest level in his field, too.

2

calcteacher t1_j25gwm7 wrote

High level research was only one aspect of my response. His strength was in communication to the general public and for that he was unsurpassed. You can't be great at everything. He will be remembered as a great communicator because that he did that most excellently of all the things he accomplished in my opinion.

1

calcteacher t1_j25h9p1 wrote

May I ask you if you've published anything yourself? Do you know what it takes? Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular? May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?

1

Belostoma t1_j25nki0 wrote

>Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular? May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?

Why are you asking these stupid questions of /u/tzaeru, when I already showed you that Sagan had many top-notch, original research publications that were both first-authored and published before he was famous? He wasn't just getting added onto somebody else's work. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this bullshit.

1

tzaeru t1_j25omai wrote

> May I ask you if you've published anything yourself?

Sure! I haven't.

> Do you know what it takes?

I have an idea yes.

> Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular?

Sure, but Carl Sagan has been listed as an author in a decent pile of papers even before he was very famous.

There's also original research he's headed. Most notably to the atmospheric compositions and surface temperatures on other planets and moons.

> May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?

I know the basics of the process! I'm not a researcher, but I've studied in universities and have many researcher friends and colleagues.

Universities, since I stopped computer science studies early on when I got employed, but have been studying up on some statistics and social sciences in another city later on.

1

calcteacher t1_j2b3ce9 wrote

I know the basics of the process! I'm not a researcher, but I've studied in universities and have many researcher friends and colleagues.

haha ha

you know nothing of the process? I have friends?

please

until your name goes on the author line, you know nothing. IMHO

1

tzaeru t1_j2b3wbh wrote

Ok. I don't think you're discussing in good faith here.

1

calcteacher t1_j2b3jjx wrote

>Sure, but Carl Sagan has been listed as an author in a decent pile of papers even before he was very famous.

sure?

you know nothing my friend, until your name appears in the author line. Amirite?

1

[deleted] t1_j2b3syh wrote

[removed]

1

tzaeru t1_j2dsa51 wrote

You should rely on facts, rather than petty insults.

Here this very matter is discussed: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/7/2077

>Sagan's biographers have argued that the Academy's rejection of Sagan, and Harvard's prior denial of his tenure, were the direct consequence of the phenomenon that has become known as the “Sagan Effect”: the perception that popular, visible scientists are worse academics than those scientists who do not engage in public discourse. Yet, later analyses of Sagan's output have indicated that his academic contributions compared favorably to those of other Academy members

You may want to read about the "Carl Sagan effect".

1

AlaskaExplorationGeo t1_j25cn4v wrote

He is actually still fairly frequently cited. He wasn't like, Darwin or Einstein but still a good scientist, in addition to being basically the best science communicator ever.

1

calcteacher t1_j25gk4t wrote

I told you I liked them. He was a little overblown for his science because he was popular. Popularity matters when it comes to publishing Despite what you may think. As far as Darwin goes, it's interesting to see what Sapolsky thinks of Darwin.

1

AlaskaExplorationGeo t1_j25kki7 wrote

In Sagan's case, and as a scientist myself, the popularity was deserved, imo. What does Sapolsky think of Darwin?

2

calcteacher t1_j25t7q8 wrote

Sapolsky takes each bioscience idea, presents it (such as Darwin's survival of the fittest) and then explains why its wrong. He has a very nice 24 part lecture series he did while teaching at Stanford. It was fun, I think you may like it.

1