Remix.run Logo
chistev 5 hours ago

I'm currently reading (Re-reading actually) Cosmos by Carl Sagan, and in a chapter where he talked about Venus and how hot Venus is (Venus is actually the hottest planet in the solar system despite Mercury being closer to the Sun - although this wasn't mentioned in the book), and how the space probes that were sent there met an ugly fate, he had this interesting footnote which I want to share -

"In this stifling landscape, there is not likely to be anything alive, even creatures very different from us. Organic and other conceivable biological molecules would simply fall to pieces. But, as an indulgence, let us imagine that intelligent life once evolved on such a planet. Would it then invent science? The development of science on Earth was spurred fundamentally by observations of the regularities of the stars and planets. But Venus is completely cloud-covered. The night is pleasingly long - about 59 Earth days long but nothing of the astronomical universe would be visible if you looked up into the night sky of Venus. Even the Sun would be invisible in the daytime; its light would be scattered and diffused over the whole sky - just as scuba divers see only a uniform enveloping radiance beneath the sea. If a radio telescope were built on Venus, it could detect the Sun, the Earth and other distant objects. If astrophysics developed, the existence of stars could eventually be deduced from the principles of physics, but they would be theoretical constructs only. I sometimes wonder what their reaction would be if intelligent beings on Venus one day learned to fly, to sail in the dense air, to penetrate the mysterious cloud veil 45 kilometers above them and eventually to emerge out the top of the clouds, to look up and for the first time witness that glorious universe of Sun and planets and stars."

. . .

Carl Sagan is an amazing author, and I've shared the famous excerpt from his book Pale Blue Dot multiple times before - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565381

A few mentions of his books in my blog post here - https://www.rxjourney.net/30-things-i-know

igleria 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> sometimes wonder what their reaction would be if intelligent beings on Venus one day learned to fly, to sail in the dense air, to penetrate the mysterious cloud veil 45 kilometers above them and eventually to emerge out the top of the clouds, to look up and for the first time witness that glorious universe of Sun and planets and stars."

like when in matrix revolutions they climb up above the clouds and see the sun for the first time :')

chistev 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Haven't seen that. Any YouTube link of that scene?

igleria an hour ago | parent [-]

here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7UC3TdBx-8

iberator 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sagan is good for high schoolers maybe.

Not really scientific books at all. He is popular because he was hyped in the media for being accessible.

Those people dumb down science for the masses - it harms society on the long run imo

piva00 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Making information more accessible and approachable never harms society in the long run.

Your view is just a snobbish and rigid one, Sagan made science topics interesting for more people, from those people very likely many got inspired enough to pursue deeper science training.

Dumbing down is necessary to make it interesting for people who feel it's unapproachable, it breaks a barrier, I have no idea how you look at this and think "this is harming society"...

gnz11 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I’ve read a lot of hot takes on HN, but Carl Sagan harming society is on a whole new level.

gbil 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This really struck a chord for me. The majority of the people I know - including me - want to be drawn into a topic somehow and that somehow is story telling. People like Sagan and Tyson are amazing story tellers, they will draw you in with their use of language, their voice and pace and will open the doors for everything else. This is how great teachers do it and this is what is missing for most of the people to be interested into a topic, no matter how basic it is.

chistev 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If a science book is too heavy, you'll get less people interested in science than would normally be.

Carl Sagan significantly influenced Neil deGrasse Tyson (another popular science writer), for example. But I'm not sure if Tyson would have pursued science regardless of Sagan's influence.

jeffwass 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a terrible take, and I say this having a PhD in Physics.

Many physicists have written popular articles and books for the general population. Eg Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox. Improving accessibility of advanced concepts is nothing to scoff at.

ultratalk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://xkcd.com/397/ (the zombie feynman one)

ur-whale 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Sagan is good for high schoolers maybe.

Even though I think you are wrong on this, you seem to be saying it like it's a bad thing ? Why ?

What, exactly, is wrong about inspiring high-schoolers ?

BrandoElFollito 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As an ex-physicist, I cannot disagree more.

When explaining something to people outside of science, I was ok with 60% accuracy. Even 50% and some technical lies was fine if this would encourage them to learn more. Some came back to say "you lied!!" and these were one of my most cherished victories.

In lectures for 1st year students, I would have here and there an asterisk with "almost true", to which we would come back a semesters or two later.

Dumbing down science to dumb up people is wonderful.

igleria 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

do you want to gatekeep science even more than it is?