leyline

HeatherD

"QM and science in general are more objective and require a solid base of education to really understand it. "

well as you know i just disagree with you that Qm and science are particularily special in this regard. Moreover i don't believe that Sagan felt that way either. Anyone who has been involved in a media production of a complex issue experiences the same problems, and knows that entertainment comes first anyway. Sagan knew he was a good entertainer, and he knew that complexity of media issues is not restricted to QM. He was being entertaining when he wrote that stuff IMO, and pleasing the crowd. The context of a media performance, eg magazine, tv, radio, etc greatly affects the outcome to someone who is as skilled as Sagan was. The audience and their expectations change accordingly.

Majestyk

"Evidently you disagree with my characterization of extrapolations being specualtion based on limited knowledge."

on the contrary. I just felt that the contributions made to the thread so far showed limited knowledge of the media and how Sagan's experience as a performer in that light can change the whole interpretation of the quote.

It goes further than that though, and actually gives a new context for interpreting what you guys wrote. ie the satisfied audience to Sagan's performance.

This is not a criticism. We all love to be stimulated by the media and its performers. I know i do, and in fact i enjoyed Sagan's deception. It means that i was in the know, but in a different context.

ex-xian

When I first read this, I thought that you were either a scientist who thought popularizers did a disservice, or someone who knows nothing about science. After reading the other post, I think that you probably the latter.

No one has said that science is unique wrt it being a specialized disciplined that everyday people can't understand. However, people usually don't try to base religions or metaphysics on media content. That was the context of the quote. Have you actually read the book that the quote is from? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to render an opinion as to it's motive.

The problem with your position is that anyone involved in the study of QM would agree with what he wrote, even those with no media experience. That you believe that Sagan was being deceptive in some way in no ways affects the truth of what he wrote.

Also, it is quite arrogant of you to assume that Sagan was a deceptive media entertainer who delighted in tricking his audience unless you actually know that man. Believe it or not, there are people out there who love learning and love to share what they know. Everyone who did know Sagan testifies that he was that type of person.

Face it--science is special. It's not perfect, but "it's the most precious thing we have."

fando

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and it appears that you don't know much about Sagan and his motivations.

leyline

ex-xian

"Have you actually read the book that the quote is from? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to render an opinion as to it's motive."

oh ok. i didn't realise the qualifications necessary for trying to contribute to this thread. I have opinions on what writers are generally irrespective of the subject.

"That you believe that Sagan was being deceptive in some way in no ways affects the truth of what he wrote"

! a curious comment that one, especially in the light of the previous quote.... but as it happens one that i completely agree with. By deceptive incidentally, i didn't mean maliciously. I mean like any good entertainer. Writers included.

"Also, it is quite arrogant of you to assume that Sagan was a deceptive media entertainer who delighted in tricking his audience unless you actually know that man. "

we all love to be 'tricked'. Its not a criticism of him, quite the opposite! And again i have opinions on media entertainers generally. They are not specific to Sagan.

But ok. Its your thread. I genuinely thought you might like my perspective and didn't mean to insult. I remember Sagan's programmes with great affection and i am sure he played an inspiring part in my later studies in science.

"Face it--science is special. It's not perfect, but "it's the most precious thing we have."

I have no desire to try and undermine your values. No offense intended.

Take it easy man and all the best in your pursuit of truth.

ex-xian

Oh, contribute all you want, but don't be surprised if people challenge your claims.

I guess I really don't understand what you're saying he was deceptive about.

It's hardly my thread, I just started it. Just out of curiosity, how far did you studies of science go? I thought you said that you were in the media business.
Please undermine my values! How else can I test what I think it true.

Well, I'm going to go do my QM homework now....no, really, I am.

leyline

ex-xian

i don't mind challenges either, but i don't want to upset people or take a thread off into another direction that others don't like. I also don't like bad vibes or causing them, and i would sooner withdraw if i feel that is happening.

As for me, i am into independent media production, mainly video. I studied theoretical physics to degree level and was pretty good at it. I still do some research of my own occasionally. I am not sure how relevant this information is, but you asked.

"I guess I really don't understand what you're saying he was deceptive about."

Well again i mean like a good entertainer, and that’s positive. The first thing that stares me in the face is the first line.

"Imagine you wanted to understand what quantum mechanics is about."

This is a very odd line if you think about it. Who is it addressed to? The person who already understands or the 'layman'? Well cleverly it applies to both. Its a warm enclosing line that draws everyone in together. Good stuff.

He then gives a bloody great long list of necessary studies that take 15 years to complete before you even start! This elevates QM to a very special status. It mystifies the subject for most people and raises it on a special pedestal. This by implication also raises his status cos he understands it. AND those who have those qualifications and thus makes them feel good about themselves. Combine that with his warmth and inclusiveness and you have a wide audience with you and in awe of you.

But hang on. You can construct that line of reasoning to any discipline of complexity and worth. And why not! Its good media that makes the subject and the performer look special and pulls the audience in.

"The job of the popularizer of science, trying to get across some idea of quantum mechanics to a general audience that has not gone through these inituition rites, is daunting. "

fantastic! I love the use of the word rites. Now he is a hero for even trying. (As opposed to a travelling minstrel singing for his supper.)

"Indeed, there are no successful popularizations of quantum mechanics in my opinion--party for this reason."

Rubbishing the opposition under the guise of praising their valiant but failed efforts. This is superb media technique.

"These mathematical complexities are compounded by the fact that quantum mechanics is so resolutely counterintuitive. Common sense is almost useless in approaching it."

So don't even try, ........ except after the 15 year introductory course. Just listen to heroes like me. Those who have done it can look forward to even more wonderful challenges and congratulate themselves on how far they have already got. And why not!

"It's no good, Richard Feynman once said, asking why it is that way. No one knows why it is that. That's just the way it is."

The nail in the coffin, or is it the hook in the mouth? Even Sagan cannot rubbish Feynman, so why not quote him out of context? That way he becomes an ally. Someone of equal and great stature who stands alongside and supports his view. This leaves the reader begging Sagan to try and get QM across so that they might just be in the know. Brilliant.

I seriously doubt if Feynman would have gone along with the general tone of these quotes. He was a great demystifier of science.

But i am not criticising what Sagan wrote. It is precisely this kind of writing that might inspire a young person to study science to the level of QM, and i applaud that. That and the entertainment value itself.

But philosophically it is well dodgy. If philosophers restricted themselves to an insiders lifetime study of all rich and complex disciplines before applying and comparing general principles and paradigms, then we wouldn’t even get started. But that is not a criticism of Sagan’s words. That wasn’t his audience. And it is no contradiction if Sagan goes on to popularize QM, because popularization needs this kind of writing.

ex-xian

It's not an odd line if you know the context that it's presented in. He's talking about the religionists claim to special knowledge and contrasting it with the scientific claim to knowledge.

Well, the problem is that all the math is necessary to understand QM. It's not on a special or mystical pedestal, it's just damn hard.
No, even after taking all the classes, it's still counterintuitive. That's the whole point. If you try to understand it in terms of macroscopic intuition, you'll fail. If doesn't matter if you're Stephen Hawking or Dubya.
So he's a good writer. And that's tricky how?
Once again, your ignorance of the context is causing you to misunderstand the text. There is no opposition in the sense that you're using the word. That sentence is just making the point, once again, that QM is counterintuitive.
Well, again, you don't know what you're talking about wrt the book. Sagan doesn't go on to describe QM to get his readers "in the know." He's already said that that's a virtually impossible task. He goes on to discuss the differences between scientific and religious claims to knowledge.
Well some things can't be demystified. That quote in no way misconstrued Feynman's intent. Here another quote from Feynman:
The point of quoting Feynman wasn't to say QM is impossible to understand (but it's really hard), but to further the position that intuition is useless when thinking about QM. Useless for Sagan, useless for Feynman, and useless for the layman.

edited to correct vB code

leyline

well ok.

i just disagree that you need to do all that math to get the philosophical gist, but nevertheless see a value in the mystification.

secondly i am not contradicting the reading of Sagan at face value or in the wider face value of the rest of the text, just giving a media perspective of the way it was said in those quotes that runs alongside. I thought this was relevant to a discussion of the media popularization of a subject and was willing to withdraw because i hadn't read the whole book. Incidentally i didn't assume that he went on to popularize QM in this text.

"So he's a good writer. And that's tricky how?"

OOoo how tricky indeed. But there we go, you remain singularly unimpressed. I have added nothin to the discussion for you. Oh well, i tried.

take it easy

Jesse

But Sagan didn't say you needed all the math to "get the philosophical gist", he said you needed it to "understand what quantum mechanics is about." I'd agree that to understand the essential core of why quantum mechanics is "weird" (in a more fundamental way than, say, general relativity), you just need to understand some basics like the double-slit experiment and the violation of Bell's theorem, but to understand the details of QM you do need the math.

ex-xian

If you had as many discussions with scientifically ignorant people about QM as we've had here, you might change your mind.
And I just pointed out that your "media perspecitve" was skewed b/c you had no idea what the context was.

Quote:

This leaves the reader begging Sagan to try and get QM across so that they might just be in the know. Brilliant.

The quote directly above seemed to imply that you did. Sorry if I misread you...my mistake.

True. And that's too bad. Perhaps is you responded to my points that contradicted yours, or else conceded the points, I would have paid more attention to what you had to say. I just frustrated and impatient with empty assertions.