Today, Carl Sagan claims, the dangers of a scientifically illiterate society are more drastic than ever before. Whether we like it or not, our world depends on science and technology in nearly every aspect of our lives. Medicine, agriculture, communication, transportation, the economic system, and virtually all other major industries rely on the knowledge and information gained by scientists. The average person, though, doesn’t understand how most of these things work at a fundamental level. This, according to Sagan, is a recipe for disaster. How, he asks, can we expect to make smart decisions about our future if we don’t understand the underlying concepts?
In The Demon-Haunted World, first published in 1995, Carl Sagan warns of a dark future: one in which people are largely ignorant of the world around them, we are unable to determine what’s true and what’s not, we are too quick to believe in the false or the supernatural, our lack of critical and skeptical thinking erodes our ability to adequately question authority, and we slowly devolve into a less prosperous and democratic society.
Sagan wants to make the ideas, and more importantly, the methods, of science more accessible to the average person. A citizenry that better understands the methods of scientific, critical, and skeptical thinking will be better equipped to tackle the challenges that face humanity in the 21st century.
In this guide, we’ll examine Sagan’s argument that a less scientific society is a less prosperous, just, and functional society. We’ll also cover:
Throughout the guide, we’ll look at how these things have changed in the years since the publication of The Demon-Haunted World and if we’re closer or further from the future that Carl Sagan feared.
According to Sagan, science, at its core, is about asking questions, sharing knowledge, testing ideas, and viewing everything with a critical and skeptical eye. It’s driven by a curiosity about the world around us—an attempt at understanding how the universe works. But, perhaps most importantly, science is about not accepting a claim to knowledge unless it can be proven, unless there is verifiable and reproducible evidence that confirms it to be true. Throughout history into the present day, we see how the failure to apply these principles can lead to disastrous consequences. Furthermore, the shortage of scientific awareness can be seen around the world in the widespread belief in the supernatural or mystical, the general acceptance of pseudoscientific ideas, and the espousing of anti-science rhetoric.
Science as an Expert Consensus
In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway give a little more insight into what science is and how it works. While some think the principles of science are more or less iron-clad, Oreskes and Conway argue that science is really more of an expert consensus on claims to knowledge.
It is collaborative in nature, as reaching a consensus on a scientific question requires extensive research and peer review. One scientist comes up with a hypothesis, collects evidence, and publishes the findings. Other scientists, preferably experts in the same field, then examine the evidence and try to poke holes in the theory. Through this process, a consensus is reached, but just because a hypothesis is peer-reviewed and published doesn’t mean it is fact. There will always be at least a small degree of uncertainty in scientific matters.
Sagan claims beliefs in pseudosciences are becoming more and more common in the modern age. A pseudoscience is an idea or system of explanation that claims to be scientifically true but is actually based on faulty premises or insufficient evidence. In other words, pseudoscience is misinformation disguised as science. Pseudosciences come in many forms. As Sagan claims, for virtually every field of science, there is a corresponding form of pseudoscience. Geology, for example, has flat-earthers. Chemistry has alchemy. Astronomy has astrology.
The supernatural, on the other hand, is something that exists outside the laws of nature. Supernatural beliefs often come in the form of religious ideologies. Both New Age spirituality and the old faith-based religions are broadly followed in modern times. Things like demons, angels, gods, or spirits are widely accepted. Supernatural beliefs can also come in secular forms such as magic or extrasensory perception.
The differences between pseudoscience and the supernatural can be difficult to determine. The lines separating them are blurry. Astrology, for example, may fall in both categories. What they have in common is that they are unscientific. We’ll examine why pseudosciences and supernatural beliefs are so common and why they’re dangerous.
Unscientific Beliefs Today
Since Sagan published The Demon-Haunted World in 1995, unscientific beliefs continue to be widespread. The United States has the highest number of flat-earthers and climate change skeptics in the world. Sixteen percent of Americans have doubts about the roundness of the Earth and 40% don’t think there is climate change caused by human activity. Seemingly innocuous beliefs like these may be indicative of a culture of credulity, which has serious consequences, as we’ll see.
Furthermore, according to a 2018 study, roughly 60% of American adults hold at least one New Age belief, which includes both supernatural and pseudoscientific ideas such as reincarnation, psychics, and astrology. For example, a third of Americans believe in reincarnation.
Who’s most likely to hold unscientific beliefs? The 2018 study referenced above also examines the correlation between religious beliefs and New Age beliefs. Non-Christians are about as likely to believe in New Age beliefs as Christians, with both hovering just above 60%. Atheists, however, are much less likely to hold supernatural beliefs than either Christians or other unaffiliated religious groups, such as agnostics. Only 22% of atheists hold one or more New Age beliefs, compared to 56% of agnostics and 78% who claimed their religion is “nothing in particular.” In this data, we see a correlation between one supernatural belief and another. People who are neither religious nor spiritual are much more likely to reject New Age ideas or other supernatural beliefs.
There are several psychological, social, and even practical reasons people believe in pseudosciences or supernatural phenomena.
Sagan argues that because pseudosciences mimic the processes and methods of the scientific method, they can seem like they are true, especially to people untrained in scientific or critical thinking. Furthermore, people want to believe pseudoscientific claims. People want to believe there are aliens among us, that crystals hold some form of cosmic energy that can be harnessed, and that somewhere in the depths of the ocean lies the lost city of Atlantis. Such beliefs appeal to our emotions—they can instill in us a sense of wonder, a departure from the mundanity of our everyday lives.
A key difference between pseudoscience and the supernatural, according to Sagan, is that while pseudosciences usually rely on faulty or misleading evidence, supernatural beliefs usually rely on the absence of evidence. It is impossible to disprove that demons, spirits, or gods exist because they exist outside the natural world.
Like pseudoscience, belief in the supernatural is largely driven by our desire to believe in it. Supernatural beliefs assuage our negative emotions and help us cope with the realities of life. Belief in a psychic's ability to speak with the dead helps us cope with our grief, for example. Belief in the afterlife alleviates our fear of death. Supernatural beliefs can also give meaning and purpose to our lives. They can help explain the unexplainable, filling in the gaps of our incomplete understanding of the world.
How Biases Shape Our Beliefs
Since the book’s publication, scientists have gained a better understanding of the powerful cognitive biases that cause us to cling to unscientific beliefs.
Sunk cost fallacy: If people have believed in something for a long time, if they’ve invested a lot of time and effort into it, they are more likely to defend this belief in an attempt to justify previous decisions based on that belief. It can be hard to completely abandon astrology if you’ve spent hundreds of hours reading horoscopes and researching celestial patterns.
Confirmation bias: This is the tendency people have to latch on to evidence that supports their beliefs and reject evidence that contradicts them. In many ways, our beliefs shape the way we see the world instead of the other way around.
Clustering illusion: Our brains try to find patterns. It helps us make decisions and create order out of randomness. Sometimes, though, this pattern-seeking tendency can lead us astray, creating meaning out of meaningless data or reinforcing beliefs with faulty evidence.
Dunning-Kruger effect: This is the tendency for people to overestimate their own knowledge or competency on a particular subject. The more you know, the more you may doubt your own expertise. Conversely, the less you know, the less you doubt your expertise. This results in people with little knowledge having more confidence in their beliefs than the experts trying to disprove them.
Sagan argues that supernatural and pseudoscientific practices and beliefs can cause considerable harm. As they become more widespread, so does our sense of credulity—our propensity to believe in things without proof. A credulous society will be less critical and less open-minded because most of us will simply believe what we want to believe. As we stray further from the field of science and become more comfortable with pseudoscience and superstition, we lessen our capacity to distinguish between fact and opinion and between what feels good and what’s true. In doing so, we impair our ability to make important decisions, both at an individual and societal level.
Historically, we’ve seen these issues materialize again and again. One particularly striking and illuminating example is the history of witch hunts in the Western world, which peaked between the 15th and 18th centuries. The witch hunts show us how susceptible we are to unfounded beliefs and how dangerous they are, as tens of thousands of people were killed without a fair or reasonable trial.
In the modern world, we face a myriad of issues with profound social implications, such as population growth, nuclear energy, addiction, mental health, and environmental issues like climate change. Science can help us address these issues. Pseudoscience and the supernatural cannot and will likely only get in the way.
Historical Perspective: Witch Hunts and the Satanic Panic
For many scientists, the witch hunts are an excellent case study of how unscientific beliefs, combined with intense fear or moral outrage, can lead to disastrous repercussions. Sagan believes we must pay attention to how things like this happened so we don’t let them happen again. Experts suggest that mass hysteria events such as the witch trials are caused by an “epidemic of fear.” When fear is drummed up, people quickly lose their sense of rationality, resulting in almost unimaginable consequences.
A more recent example of mass hysteria, one not too dissimilar from the witch hunts, can be found in the “satanic panic.” Starting in America in the 1980s, the satanic panic saw hundreds of reports on the satanic or ritualistic abuse of children. These reports include cult-like behaviors such as human sacrifices, cannibalism, consumption of blood, and widespread sexual assault. Thousands were accused of such crimes, and dozens more were imprisoned for them, often with no evidence other than personal testimonies. During this time, even law enforcement became wrapped up in the hysteria, as police agencies gave seminars that warned of things like heavy metal music and the board game Dungeons and Dragons as indicators of Satanic crime.
Some suggest that the satanic panic has returned, citing recent moral panics such as the conspiracy theories maintained by QAnon followers. Even today, we are clearly susceptible to the dangers of unscientific beliefs.
Science and reason have the ability to upend or throw into question conventional wisdom. New discoveries often challenge our cherished beliefs. For this and many other reasons, Sagan claims, science is often criticized by both the masses and the powerful few. Some of the criticisms of science are valid, but they don’t hold weight when more carefully considered.
Science is a skeptical practice by nature, Sagan claims. But it’s not doubt for the sake of doubting. Scientific skepticism is about coming to a better understanding of the way the world works. When this skepticism calls into question our views, or when a scientific discovery dismantles a widely-held belief system, it may come across as too dismissive and overreaching. To some, it may feel like a personal attack. The things we believe in are a big part of who we are. It is easy to see why people are reluctant to let go of them so easily, and why the people or processes questioning those beliefs might come under attack.
The Psychology of Beliefs
Sagan argues that many people reject science because it challenges their beliefs, which form their identities. Psychologists agree and provide insight on why beliefs are so intertwined with identity: They’re strongly connected to our emotions and values. Both connections make people resistant to changing their beliefs.
When people are emotionally attached to their beliefs, they imbue them with a sense of importance and meaning, often feeling that those beliefs give their life purpose. Strong emotional attachment also indicates a connection to values—underlying principles or standards for behavior. People are highly resistant to changing their values, as they feel their values guide their decision-making in life. For this reason, if a scientific finding calls into question something on which a person’s very concept of morality is based, it’s going to be much more difficult for them to accept. Therefore, those who base much of their moral and ethical codes on, for example, religious beliefs, may resist new scientific discoveries more strongly than others who don’t.
Sagan argues that belief systems aren’t just what keeps individuals going: They also shape society as a whole. They are a major driver of the status quo. Because of this, the main benefactors of the status quo (in other words, the dominant social or political establishments) will also be quick to condemn and criticize the ideas, methods, and practitioners of science.
For example, belief in the divine right of kings kept monarchies going for centuries. To question this divine right was to question the authority that ruled over you. Similarly, to question the veracity of witchcraft accusations was to question the Catholic Church itself, and was a punishable act in its own right. Sagan says the people in control won’t relinquish their control easily. If attacking science or impugning, imprisoning, or killing scientists will keep them in power, they won’t hesitate to do so.
Historical Perspective: Attacks on Scientists
Sagan argues that the powerful few will attack a scientific theory if it jeopardizes their power, and history shows this to be true. There are many instances of institutions attacking science, scientists, or anyone else who threatened the power of the institutions. Importantly, though, when the argument is strong and has enough support from both the academic world and the general public, the science survives these attacks.
Galileo was convicted for supporting the heliocentric theory proposed by Copernicus. In 1633, he was accused of heresy by the Catholic Church and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. Not only this, but his publishings on the heliocentric theory were banned. As the scientific revolution changed the way society viewed the world, and other scientists confirmed the heliocentric theory, the Catholic Church slowly retracted its condemnation of Galileo. As recently as 1992, Pope John Paul II admitted the Catholic Church was wrong and officially “rehabilitated” Galileo. Despite this, one in four Americans still believes the sun revolves around the Earth.
Though Charles Darwin wasn’t ever officially condemned by the Catholic Church, Christian fundamentalists have criticized the theory of evolution since its inception. While evolution by natural selection is widely accepted by scientists, the numbers are much lower among the rest of the population. Only 65% of US adults believe humans and other creatures evolved. Even when a theory is broadly accepted among the scientific community, getting the rest of the population to accept it can be a challenge.
Anti-science rhetoric has persisted into the present day. Sagan, and virtually every other scientist, will admit science isn’t perfect. In the end, though, the pursuit of knowledge is essential, and any arguments against science aren’t strong enough to justify ending or abating this pursuit. Here are a few more common critiques of science that Sagan addresses in The Demon-Haunted World.
People may criticize science as immoral or evil, pointing to the threats of climate change and nuclear catastrophe or the detrimental effects of technology. Though scientific advancements have indeed led to some negative consequences, Sagan argues that the good outweighs the bad.
For example, science is responsible for enormous advancements in health and medicine, increasing life expectancy dramatically. Science is behind improvements in agriculture, communication, and transportation, vastly raising the standard of living for billions of people. Scientific research has provided invaluable information on the origins and natures of our species, our planet, and the universe. Despite its potential weaknesses, science is capable of remarkable achievements that contribute to the benefit and prosperity of everyone.
Other Reasons People Think Science Is Evil
Researchers have found that although science is a well-respected profession, many people still associate scientists with immoral conduct. There are several potential reasons for this association that Sagan doesn’t touch on.
People are motivated by their ideologies: If people don’t agree with scientists’ conclusions, they’ll be more likely to find them wrong or immoral.
Scientists are blamed for societal deterioration: Some people are suspicious or critical of science because they link scientific progress with moral decline, pessimism, and potential technological disaster. For example, the public’s anxiety about nuclear energy indicates worry about technological catastrophe.
The mad scientist trope distorts views on scientists: The stereotype of the evil or crazy scientist is seen throughout our culture (Dr. Strangelove, Frankenstein). This pervasive stereotype can damage scientists’ reputations.
Widely publicized cases of fraud make scientists seem corrupt: When a scientist violates ethical standards through plagiarism or falsification of data, it sometimes becomes a big news story, further damaging the reputation of scientists.
Because of its skeptical and critical nature, some may say science is too quick to rule out any sort of explanation without physical evidence. It constrains a vast world of possibilities into a much smaller world of provable reality. It sets limits on what we can and can’t do. It tries to explain the complexity of the universe with mere mathematical equations and laws of nature. But the laws of nature, Sagan says, are an observable fact. They have been proven through calculated testing and retesting of hypotheses. The way the world works has nothing to do with our beliefs, assumptions, or desires.
(Shortform note: Some suggest that one reason science is seen as too narrow or restrictive is that it fails to explain why things matter. Science may be able to explain things about the natural world with more and more accuracy, but it has yet to provide people the emotional value they seek from religion or other supernatural explanations. Science may disprove some religious teachings, but it doesn’t provide any valuable alternatives, and it may never be able to.)
Just when we think we understand something about the world, scientists say this is no longer true. New discoveries are constantly being made that disprove a previously ironclad scientific theory. To some, this may make science seem as if it is erratic or arbitrary. But this is simply the way science is supposed to work. The fact that things are always changing is a sign that we are making progress and that no idea or theory is beyond criticism or reevaluation.
Convincing Others to Change Their Mind
Perhaps one reason people criticize the constant changing in science is that we are naturally resistant to change, even when presented with facts. A recent example of this sort of criticism can be seen in the government’s changing guidance on Covid-19 measures and the public’s response. As scientists learned more about the transmission of Covid-19, the guidelines on mask-wearing, vaccines, and social distancing also changed. The CDC and elected officials have received a lot of criticism for their ever-changing advice on face masks and other covid measures.
There are, however, some ways we can better influence others to change their minds, such as finding common ground, framing our views in a positive light, and allowing others a sense of agency over their choices.
Some suggest we may be better off without some of the knowledge science provides. What if a major scientific discovery with profound implications completely unravels an otherwise orderly society? Is releasing this information necessary if it doesn’t benefit the general public?
Sagan suggests that no matter the case, we are better off knowing the truth. It is preferable to know the way things are rather than believe in a reassuring delusion. The potential consequences of some world-shattering discoveries are probably overestimated. Furthermore, no human, or group of humans, is wise enough to correctly determine what knowledge should be withheld from the rest of humanity. No one should have that power.
Science: Openness Versus Secrecy
Sagan maintains that science should remain accessible to the public as much as possible. Researchers suggest, though, that while openness is an important scientific principle, there are limits: There may be good reasons for maintaining some secrecy in research. Such reasons include protecting intellectual property, protecting the privacy of research participants or scientists, and protecting populations from threats to national or international security.
Some of the cases regarding the withholding of research raise some troubling issues. Biomedical companies, for example, have been known to not publish the results of clinical trials that present their products as risky or dangerous. In the case of national security, the government has deemed some scientific findings too risky to publish because they fear terrorist organizations will use them to create biological or chemical weapons. In such cases, we have to consider the potential risks and benefits of publishing certain studies, as well as the scientists’ right to free speech.
Sagan says the pervasive commercialism of our modern world and our seemingly unlimited access to information make it much harder to determine what’s true and what’s not. Let’s explore why we’re often taken in by false advertising and how to evaluate the veracity of a claim.
Sagan claims that commercial culture erodes our critical faculties in order to make money. Skepticism, he says, doesn’t sell. Exaggerated headlines and pseudosciences appeal to our emotions, engender more attention, and thus, generate more profits. For this reason, we’re likely to encounter many false or misleading claims through various media (television, radio, newspapers, and online sources): We’re constantly encouraged to buy things without thinking too much about what we’re buying or if the claims about the efficacy of the product are even valid. According to Sagan, even “real scientists” promote products for personal gain at the expense of the consumer and science alike. Commercial culture cultivates a general sense of credulity amongst the population, which is then used to feed you more baloney and extract more of your money.
Deceptive Advertising
Sagan was particularly prescient in his discussion of commercial culture. In 2022, deceptive or misleading claims in advertisements are still common. Here are some deceptive ad trends experts are worried about in 2022:
Amazon’s liability: A large part of Amazon’s business is marketing and selling third-party products on its platform. Many have filed lawsuits trying to hold Amazon accountable for misleading customers or selling fake products, but these issues still remain.
Life-saving claims: The criteria used for what is considered “life-saving” may differ from one company to the next. For example, Life Alert appears to have a very loose definition of “life-saving” to make it look like it saves more lives than it actually does.
Income claims: As the multi-level marketing (MLM) industry grows, so do claims that people can make a lot of money by joining an MLM. These claims are usually false or exaggerated, as the vast majority of people joining MLMs make little or no money.
Dark patterns: Dark patterns include things like tricking customers into signing up for subscriptions, claiming a product is in limited supply when it isn’t, or “confirmshaming,” in which customers are guilted into making purchases.
Sagan argues that skeptical thinking is more important in the modern world than ever before. The processes of science have a toolkit for skeptical thinking built in, one which the general public may not use or even be aware of. Essentially, skeptical thinking is a method of creating and understanding a well-founded argument. Sagan recommends asking some questions aimed at fostering skepticism:
How to Be a “True” Skeptic
Skepticism is a major principle of the scientific method, but it can be used incorrectly. Experts note that the language of skepticism has been co-opted to lend credence to pseudosciences and conspiracy theories. Anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers may tell you to “do your own research” instead of going along with conventional wisdom. There are many “skeptics” like this, and most of them are motivated by a desire for the truth, but there is real danger when claims that vaccines cause autism are treated as seriously as the science behind the vaccines.
This brand of skepticism seems to be more about discrediting established science or questioning objective truth in general than about making a valid argument against it. Scientific skepticism is open to criticism. It challenges widely accepted beliefs, but it does so while adhering to evidence. It is not enough to simply be skeptical—you must be willing to support your claims, not just question everything and attack all other claims to knowledge. Therefore, while the above skeptical questions Sagan provides are a good start, it’s important to also take into account the credibility of any alternative sources of information you look to—for example, independent validation of a hypothesis should come from a credible source.
Sagan claims it’s just as important to understand deceptive or fallacious arguments as it is to understand a reasonable argument. There is a long list of logical and rhetorical fallacies, and many of them are commonly seen in religious and political discourse. They’re also frequently used to criticize science. Here are a few of the most common examples.
Fallacious Antiscience Arguments
Sagan provides common examples of rhetorical fallacies. It is important to understand how they work for any argument, but with climate change denial growing, understanding in particular how they’re used to criticize science is crucial. Scientists found common rhetorical techniques used for science denial across a range of topics including climate change and evolution. There are five common techniques of science denial.
Fake experts: When an unqualified person or institution is presented as a source of credible information. This can be seen as an extension of the appeal to authority. It is not the person’s credentials that matter, but their argument. An example might be: “A retired physicist argues that the current weather change is completely natural.”
Logical fallacies: Also known as nonsequiturs. There are many logical fallacies used to deny science. Here are examples: “Climate science can’t be trusted because climate scientists are biased.” (Ad hominem) “Climate has changed naturally in the past, so current climate change must also be natural.” (False dichotomy) “In the 1970s, climate scientists predicted there would be an ice age.” (Straw man)
Impossible expectations: Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science. For example, “Scientists don’t know what the climate will be like decades from now.”
Cherry picking: Selecting data that supports your argument while ignoring data that contradicts it. For instance, “There are record low temperatures today—whatever happened to global warming?”
Conspiracy theories: In regard to science denial, this often involves some secret plan to hide the truth for nefarious reasons. An example could be: “The temperature record is fabricated by scientists to push a socialist agenda.”
Sagan argues that once you adhere to the scientific tenets of skepticism and critical thinking, you’ll probably extend these principles into the social and political sphere. Because skepticism questions preconceived notions and poorly founded assumptions, science challenges the established order. In general, the more we learn about ourselves and the natural world, the more absurd and flawed the ideas of racism, misogyny, and nationalism seem. The more we share knowledge and information, the more we threaten those in power. The methods of science can be used not only to advance civilization, but also to uphold the ideals of freedom and democracy.
Sagan believes a better, broader understanding of science would counteract bigotry and intolerance. To this day, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, genders, and sexual preferences are all stereotyped. According to Sagan, stereotypes are antithetical to the principles of science. Stereotypes tend to focus on a small amount of information while ignoring the rest. They shield us from the realities of the world and keep us from having to consider the complexity and diversity of humanity. They make things easier for one group of people at the expense of another.
Science, when correctly used, is independent of cultural biases. It tries to understand the world without glossing over the details. Science calls into question the insidious claims promoted through stereotypes. It argued against the inhumanness of black people used to justify slavery. It dismantled the misogynistic theory that women were too unintelligent or emotional to vote or become scientists. Bigotry survives through ignorance, while science relies on understanding.
How Science Dispels Racist Myths
Despite Sagan’s assertion that science can counteract stereotypes, scientists aren’t immune to bigotry. For example, science has a long and troubled history regarding race, and it’s still trying to overcome its racist legacy. Dating back centuries, the institutions of science supported racist beliefs, such as the idea that race determines our human traits and abilities, or the idea that white people are superior to non-white. Today, even as we’ve known for decades that race is largely a social construct, scientific discrimination still persists.
Geneticists, however, are fighting the myth that racism is in any way grounded in scientific fact:
Myth: The physical appearance, especially skin color, of humans can be predicted by genetics.
Counter: Skin color predicts very little about the genetic similarities and differences between individuals or populations. A variety of skin colors occur across the globe, and studies show that DNA doesn’t accurately predict skin color in separate geographic regions.
Myth: Race determines our abilities. An example of this is the idea that people of African descent are athletically superior.
Counter: A small number of genetic variants are often “fetishized” by our culture and applied to entire communities. Genetics shows us that racial theories of athleticism are inconsistent.
Myth: There is a correlation between race and IQ.
Counter: Intelligence is largely due to environmental factors such as upbringing and educational access. Furthermore, IQ tests in particular are extremely biased toward white, Western society, and some suggest they cannot objectively measure intelligence at all.
According to Sagan, a well-informed and scientifically minded society will be better equipped to fight back against the injustices imposed by powerful institutions. Authoritarian governments and other powerful organizations use many tactics to suppress diverse opinions and concentrate power. They rewrite history or distort facts to more closely align with their interests. They stoke fear, anger, and hatred among the people to divide them. They use the media to influence and shape public opinion.
A critically thinking public, however, would be able to see through these tactics. A society well-versed in the scientific method could adequately question those in power and would not be so easily persuaded by the media. A skeptical culture, one that does not easily succumb to unscientific ideas, unfounded arguments, or appeals to their basest emotions, will help give power back to the masses.
Mass Media as Propaganda
In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman demonstrate the need for a critically thinking public. They argue that American media is a powerful tool for propaganda that defends the interests of the nation’s political, economic, and social elite. Although there is generally a major difference of opinion between elites and the general public, the media promotes the opinions of the political establishment and marginalizes alternative voices. The media limits the range of debate to a small number of subjects, suppressing views that fall outside this limited range.
As mass media has grown into an enormous industry, the consolidation of powers within the industry has only increased, exacerbating the issues we face as a society. The more concentrated the media industry becomes, the more it suppresses diverse opinions and serves the powerful elite. Sagan would argue that these attempts to limit diversity of thought would be much less effective in a scientifically literate society. If we could think critically about the information we are fed by the media, or about the other ways the established elite try to maintain their power, we might be able to change things for the better.
Sagan claims that science and democracy go hand in hand. Thus, a general understanding of science is necessary for a democratic society to succeed. Science and democracy share many principles (free exchange of information, self-criticism, objectivity, open debate). Like science, democratic political systems strive to become better through trial and error. Government and its policies are, in effect, wide-scale social experiments. Science and democracy, though, are more than just compatible: They depend on each other. Without the freedom provided by a democratic system, science can’t flourish. Without the critical thinking and openness to debate encouraged by science, democracy falls apart.
For democracy to work, the citizenry must be well-informed and involved in the political process. The people must willingly listen to opposing views and construct counter-arguments based on verifiable evidence and data. They must be able to tell the difference between pseudoscience and science, between well-founded and fallacious arguments. There must be a strict separation between religious beliefs and government policy, for a religion-based government is much more likely to impose its beliefs on others or persecute them for believing in something else. If we wish to maintain our democratic ideals and freedoms, we must educate ourselves in science, fund its development, and take heed of its warnings.
Scientific Democrats: Social Good Through Science
The interdependence between scientific and democratic ideals can be seen throughout history. Many argue that the ideas brought forth by the Scientific Revolution directly led to the democratic movements of the 18th century. In the late 19th century, a few American academics began to argue that the nation could best serve its political system by expanding its scientific institutions.
Known as scientific democrats, this small group believed they could harness the proven powers of science to improve social organizations in an increasingly industrialized society. The scientific democrats wanted to restore the intellectual freedoms that allow individuals to participate effectively in a democratic system. Like Sagan, the scientific democrats believed universal access to science would protect the public not only from making poor collective decisions, but also from being controlled or manipulated by the knowledgeable few.
A key argument of The Demon-Haunted World is that a scientifically literate public will greatly benefit society. Therefore, Sagan argues we must increase awareness and appreciation of science in the education system and in the general public. We can do this by increasing public funding of scientific research, as well as by communicating the discoveries, principles, and wonders of science in the classroom.
Many of the problems we encounter today are a result of a lack of critical and skeptical thinking. Sagan argues that the issues are systemic and begin in the classroom. There will be no single solution to the problems in our education system. It will take an extensive, collective effort to make sure our society is better educated and more scientifically literate. For various reasons, children are often discouraged from learning science, critical thinking, and the application of skepticism. This can lead to a general public with a disinterest, or even distaste, for science. When we don’t teach our children the methods of science, we take away our ability to manage our future.
(Shortform note: In The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan bemoans the lack of scientific and mathematical literacy in the United States, especially when compared to other countries. A recent study found that while the US has improved in math and science proficiency since the book was published, we still lag behind many other countries. As recently as 2017, in a test of 71 countries, the United States finished 38th in math and 24th in science.)
According to Sagan, a key first step in improving our scientific education is to encourage a zeal for learning and present science as the awe-inspiring field that it is. To keep students enthused about science, Sagan gives some practical advice:
If we wish to increase scientific literacy, we must not only give students the tools for critical thinking and problem-solving: We must inspire them to passionately apply these tools in their daily lives.
Teaching Science’s Value
While Sagan’s suggestions of investing more money in teachers, giving students more hands-on experience, and building curricula around students’ curiosity are great places to start, these actions may not be enough to keep kids interested in science. Researchers have found that many students decide not to take the more difficult science and math classes when they reach upper grade levels. Like Sagan, these researchers suggest that making math and science more enjoyable is the easiest way to increase science uptake. However, once a child has decided they don’t like science or that they aren’t good at math, it can be difficult to change their minds.
If you can’t convince children that science is fun, another relatively simple solution to this problem is to convince them that it is valuable. If a student believes a class is important for their future, they will be more likely to take it, even if they don’t enjoy it. Parents, teachers, and school administrators can help students see the value in math and science courses. Simply talking with children can do the trick, but sharing research on the financial benefits of science education will also help.
Another significant area in which America, and most other countries, could improve is in the funding of basic scientific research. Basic research, as opposed to applied research, is scientific research with no short-term purpose in mind. With basic research, scientists are free to follow their curiosity, study what interests them, and seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Sagan argues that this type of research is not just important to scientists—it benefits all of society. Most major scientific discoveries were made possible by basic research.
Despite the historical precedence of the importance of basic research, there is a growing trend in the federal government to spend less money on its funding. At the time of The Demon-Haunted World’s publication, research funding by both the private and public sectors was in decline, while the government’s military budget, much to Sagan’s chagrin, was over $300 billion. The funding of scientific research, he argues, is much more important to humanity than the funding of the military. What Sagan fears is that this decline in government-subsidized research will continue, and innovation, beneficial scientific discoveries, and the public interest in science will decline as a result.
Data Check: Government Spending on Basic Research Versus Military
While the US government’s funding of basic research has increased since 2000, the proportion of basic research by the federal government has declined. Furthermore, for the first time in decades, the federal government no longer funds the majority of basic research in the United States. Most basic research is now done by pharmaceutical companies or other corporations, as they hope the research will result in new drugs, products, or technologies that will generate profits.
In 2019, total research and development funding reached about $650 billion, with the federal government only accounting for around $140 billion of that total. Meanwhile, the US military and defense budget ballooned to $731 billion in 2019. The disturbing trend Sagan noticed in the 1990s has continued well into the 21st century.
Sagan argues that we often are resistant to new discoveries because they challenge our existing beliefs. Here, examine your beliefs and think about how they might affect your openness to new information.
Think about your core beliefs. Pick something you believe in that doesn’t have enough scientific backing to be considered fact. This could be a religious or spiritual belief or simply an opinion you have that shapes the way you view the world. Why do you think you hold this belief?
How does this belief affect your life and the decisions you make, large or small?
What would it take for you to dismiss this belief or believe in something else? Are you more likely to investigate new information if it upholds your beliefs or if it opposes them? Why do you think that is?
Sagan argues improving science literacy and education would greatly benefit society. Let’s examine your scientific knowledge and education and think about what could be done better.
Think back on your education. Did you enjoy learning math and science? How much time did you spend learning and applying the scientific method or critical thinking skills? Do you think you should have been taught more in these areas? Why or why not?
How familiar are you with the scientific method? How often do you use it in your daily life? Do you regularly read articles about recent scientific discoveries? If so, do you think you do enough to determine if the evidence presented is valid or invalid? Do you feel you even have the know-how to make such a distinction? Why or why not?
How might you use the scientific method to evaluate claims you encounter from media sources? How might it help you determine if something is true or false?