Posted by Boje on October 23, 1999 at 01:40:51:
In Reply to: Still no content, but a few assertions... posted by Pat on October 22, 1999 at 17:20:52:
You prefer straightforward statements? You aren’t required to back up opinions regarding opinionated publications. Get it? Opinion is always more persuasive than fact, because it’s accompanied by emotion. I’ll back that assertion by noting the fact that you are impressed by Sagan’s popular presentations more than you are aware of his scientific contributions.
Pat:
“We all have opinions. The difference between useful and useless opinions is that Sagan offered evidence for his and you don't.”
Pat:
“It's considered a good thing to support your assertions with facts. You don't have to do that, of course, but it does enhance your credibility. You should try it.”
That’s been the crux of Tom’s side of the debate, which has gone unanswered by you from the outset. As Tom has repeatedly demonstrated, Sagan wrote his popular publications in a style that ignored the scholarly convention of attributing his assertions to research-based facts gathered by authorities in fields in which he was not credentialed.
This discussion has had nothing to do with his research publications – as I stated in my first sentence in this thread.
I haven’t done a thesis on Sagan’s work, so I don’t feel qualified to join the debate as a participant on Tom’s level. I am free to support Tom’s views, without citation, by candidly describing my impressions on reading Sagan’s books. That is the way opinions work. They can be formed on the basis of interpreting the nuances of the language that the author employs. It is art – not science. Anyone who attempts to ascribe greater credence to such expression is a fool – in that regard you qualify!
In the same vein, I’m free to make note of the effusive adoration that characterizes your defense of Sagan’s views, as if you had some sort of insight that raises your interpretations above all others. Let me tell you, Pat, memorization and quick recall of all of his statements only qualifies you as a disciple.
Please!
It’s so commonplace for the disciples and opponents of a particularly notable teacher to argue about the finer points of his views after he is no longer able to clarify them. Don’t you feel the least bit conscious of that ignoble reflection on your present efforts? I think that this discussion is demeaning to you especially, Pat, because you’ve been reduced so quickly to verbal abuse in defense of your approach to discussion of this topic.
Certainly, Carl Sagan was a very good and amply recognized teacher and an extremely effective lobbyist for the concerns of the scientific community, but his opinions hardly warrant the attention that you are giving them in this thread. Why don’t you just form your own views and remain comfortable with them? Of course, you won’t, because obviously, you’re trying to reinforce your own agenda with support from the statements of a dead man.
I wonder how this’ll play two thousand years from now.
Boje