Our Existence. . We live in a exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone km: rws anything about science and Carl Sagan. it's called specialization.. if we all had to know everything about everything, the world would be filled with nothing but schools, stressed out people and waaa Our Existence We live in a exquisitely dependent on science and technology which hardly anyone km: rws anything about Carl Sagan it's called specialization if we all had to know everything the world would be filled with nothing but schools stressed out people waaa
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (157)
[ 157 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - nogphille
Reply +113 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
it's called specialization.. if we all had to know everything about everything, the world would be filled with nothing but schools, stressed out people and waaaaay less science/technology than we have today..
User avatar #2 to #1 - teranin [OP]
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
yes but even a high school level of scientific understanding would be sufficient here, the statement is being made about the religious population in this country that actually choose ignorance over knowledge.
User avatar #10 to #2 - traelos
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
Implying without religion people would magically know more.

Learn to differentiate between cause and effect there buddy.
User avatar #17 to #10 - teranin [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
uh, yes, that is exactly what I am implying, because religion intentionally causes it's followers to ignore knowledge that disagrees with their beliefs, thereby having a direct effect on the amount of knowledge that person can obtain. Perhaps you should understand what cause and effect are before claiming others have failed to differentiate between them.
User avatar #18 to #17 - traelos
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
People turn to religious excuses as an excuse to avoid knowledge, not the other way around.

There are literally billions of educated people who are religious.
User avatar #123 to #17 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Monotheistic religions actually lead to much more promotion of science than polytheistic religions. That's why Greece and Rome were more concerned with mathematics, philosophy, and politics instead of science. You're an idiot.
User avatar #149 to #123 - coolcalx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
do you know what philosophy means? in context of ancient Greece, philosophy = science. you know what a doctorate in any scientific field is called? a PhD. do you know what that means? "doctor of philosophy"

the original definition for 'philosophy' is "love of wisdom"
User avatar #155 to #149 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
The content is referring to natural science, science which involves the scientific method, which is what I'm talking about. I typed something longer out earlier, but my browser effed up so here's the short version. Polytheistic religions viewed nature as sacred and unstable, something controlled only by the gods. When monotheistic religions such as Christianity became more prominent, the view shifted. Their belief was that the world was made for man, that nature was the stable thing and men weren't, and therefore the world was predictable and could be interpreted. This was a large factor that lead to the lessening the sacredness of nature, but also contributed to the increase in natural science. Several scientists even took this idea farther, thinking that by proving nature they were proving God, most notably was Newton.
#156 to #155 - coolcalx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
#158 to #156 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#160 to #158 - coolcalx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
you're making claims and not backing them up. I'm not a dick for telling you to cite your sources.
you're making claims and not backing them up. I'm not a dick for telling you to cite your sources.
User avatar #157 to #156 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
I need a citation? It's just basic understanding of the differences in the religions. In polytheistic religion nature is directly controlled by the gods and the people are at the mercy of the gods (interpreted as nature). Read anything Greek to see that (Illiad, Oedipus, etc). In monotheistic religions like Christianity, the importance is placed on the people instead of nature. Nature is subject to the will of man, rather than the other way around (Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.")

Another point, the Greek gods were unstable (human emotions, as I said before) and therefore nature was unstable. The Christian God doesn't change (Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?). So if we presume God to be in charge of nature, it would be unchanging as He is, and things that are unchanging can be easily rationalized.
User avatar #159 to #157 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
none of this has anything to do with science, plus your argument is flawed. you claim that nature is perfect and unchanging, and back this up with a correlation to the judeo-Christian god (which is only one monotheistic deity. you haven't correlated your beliefs with any other deities, which makes your argument invalid.). the problem is, nature isn't perfect and unchanging. the very nature of the universe is quite chaotic on certain levels (especially quantum levels)
User avatar #161 to #159 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
Nature is not unchanging in that it stays the same, it is unchanging in that it follows recognizable patterns, it is not unpredictable as it was considered in truly polytheistic religions like Greece, Rome, and Egypt.
Why am I using the religions I used for my point? Native American tribes, other small tribal religions, Janism and Shinto are literally all about the sacredness of nature and life, which is why they were less developed in natural science. Hinduism is essentially monotheistic (for most branches) , but I don't know enough about their scientific history to make claims one way or the other. Taoism promoted a lot of scientific thought, but you also have to take into account that it did not hold nature as sacred, it merely accepted it's existence and made observations. Many Taoist observations are loosely correct assertions if you look at physics, such as how everything is connected in some way, and that there are always equal and opposite forces. That's not entirely relevant, but interesting. Buddhism's principles are very consistent with the scientific method, but they haven't played as much a part in the more materialistic Western culture.
The only monotheistic religions that have made any significant societal impact and scientific impact are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of them derive from very similar origins. I don't know the Qur'an well because I don't speak that language, but they have many of the same prophets and ideas, it can be assumed they have similar views on man's relation with nature.
And by chaotic you mean things we don't understand yet. There are recognizable patterns, we just haven't found them all. We used to think earthquakes and tsunamis were chaotic or acts of god, but we can now understand what causes them and predict them to some degree.
continued
User avatar #164 to #161 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
"Native American tribes, other small tribal religions, Janism and Shinto are literally all about the sacredness of nature and life, which is why they were less developed in natural science"

no, it's because they were part of small tribes. correlation does not imply causation, my friend.

Hinduism is not monotheistic. at all.

I know nothing about Taoism, so I can't make an educated comment about them.

yes, Buddhism is very consistent with the scientific method, I agree. HOWEVER, Buddhism is not a monotheistic religion; it's an atheistic religion. Buddhists do not worship anyone or anything (I'm speaking as a former practicing Buddhist).

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, and the reason they've had impact on scientific knowledge is because of the relationships religion had with government at the time. religion and government were interwoven, so (I'm going to speak solely about Christianity here) the Church was responsible for scientific advancement, observation, and what-not. This has nothing to do with the beliefs of monotheism, this is because of the relationship between the Church and the government, and the time in which this took place.

by chaotic, I'm referring to quantum mechanics, where things are literally chaotic. I don't know if you've taken a class on quantum physics, but read up on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to get some idea of what I mean (although I would assume you already know what that is). on macroscopic scales such as the universe (I'm an astrophysics major, so this is my strong point), things are very orderly, and follow patterns. on the quantum level, however, everything is basically ******* crazy. things occur literally at random at the quantum level (sort of like quantum tunneling, but that isn't completely random. just mostly.)
User avatar #165 to #164 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
Janism wasn't a small tribe, but I'll give you the rest or those.
Hinduism is often monotheistic though, but among the different branches the practices differ greatly. I will speak of a large majority. There are many different deities, but they are all a small part of the highest deity, which is God, but is not given a face because He is unknowable. The minor deities are basically to give a face to worship, depicting different gods, but they all come from the same god. A couple of them are God (Vishnu) but only in the sense that they are incarnations of God, referred to as Avatars. They are not the true face of God, nor are they a seperate god. Very similar to God and Jesus in the Bible. There are, of course, many other versions of the religion though.

I must ask, if nothing to do with the religion, why were there so little natural science advances in pagan cultures? The Greeks were some of the most advanced civilizations ever (especially Crete) and had some amazing literature, architecture, engineering, philosophers, mathematics, and tons of other stuff. But there was no scientific method, there was no process to derive truths of nature by observation and measurement. Same goes for Rome and Egypt. There were innovative genius'. But no natural science.

And I don't completely understand quantum physics, but I get the idea. But what I'm saying is that our knowledge of quantum physics is so new, so small in comparison to what we know of kinematics and the like, it is entirely likely that we will find order, as incoherent as it may seem now.
User avatar #166 to #165 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
perhaps you should look up the following works by Aristotle: Physics, Meteorology, and History of Animals

the Greeks did indeed study natural science, as you can read here circ.ahajournals.org/content/92/3/637.full

Rome was equally interested in the natural sciences, but I can't find a source for you that you can access without an account, so my apologies for that.

Egypt was actually very interested in natural sciences as you can see with their immense knowledge of weather, agriculture, medicine, and many contributions to astronomy.
User avatar #167 to #166 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
I mean things involving the scientific method, actually testing out their observations. They did do a great deal of recording observations, but there wasn't any such thing as experiments.
User avatar #168 to #167 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
well you have to remember the technological age in which you're talking about. the polytheistic cultures you're referring to exist in a time before the monotheistic ones, meaning they are at a technological disadvantage. they aren't capable of performing many experiments (although I believe I recall that the Greeks did in fact experiment with kinematic forces).
User avatar #163 to #161 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
*like in Greece, Rome, and Egyptian belief.
User avatar #162 to #161 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
The difference between polytheism(almost all of which involve deities in charge of different aspects of nature) and monotheism (many religions do not fall neatly into either of these categories, that is mostly why I am using paganism and Christianity/Judaism) is that it polytheism respects nature because it believes that to be the where the limits of science ends, in the god's territory. Monotheism does the same, but it does not revere all nature as God's territory nearly as strongly. God's territory, in their view, was the spiritual world. The only natural limits were human limits.

If you really think there are going to be sources in a purely philosophical discussion about things that happened hundreds of years ago, you are sorely mistaken.
#3 to #2 - anon id: b93d889f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
I don't think it's so much about having to know everything about everything or religion... It's a remark on our educational system and people just giving a ****.

We're becoming the gelatinous, idiot blob humans in Wall E. With technology in every aspect of our lives, millions of us live on, poking around our smart phones with our dicks and tits, taking it all for granted, completely ignorant of how anything works, and we just piss in our diapers and throw a fit if it doesn't come fast enough. Very few of us are even willing to learn and try to understand the substantial things in this amazing world.
User avatar #78 to #1 - TheBigGummyBear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I agree completely bro. I think it's better that only people who enjoy and are specialized in science and technology know about it. Otherwise, there would be no diversity in our world, it would be very very boring and we would have nothing else.

Regardless, it would be better if people had a better basic understanding of Sci/Tech. As a 3rd year physics student I can say that the basics are not hard at all, and ultimately people will become smarter by knowing a little bit more.
User avatar #122 to #1 - zaeter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Yes this is true and it's important to have specialization, but specialization can get you into trouble if the general population doesn't have the slightest idea on how to fix things.

I would say 90% of people don't know how a computer works (how to actually make a motherboard and such), yet our society heavily demands computers and computer-like devices. His point is we are oblivious to things that impact almost every facet of our entire lives (for good reason, I sure as **** don't need to learn how to make a computer from scratch), but that specialization can be endangering when only a small portion of people have such a heavy dominance on society.
User avatar #141 to #122 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
dude.. i'm in my second year of informatics.. you wouldn't believe how complicated computers and the internet is built..

technology nowadays has gone beyond the reach of a single man.. i doubt there's one man on this planet that can build a motherboard and everything else needed to get the computer running from the ores he has himself mined..
#127 to #1 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
that's a fair point, but it's not what Carl Sagan is saying here.

"we live in a society ... in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"

he's saying that society has a very poor understanding of science and/or technology, which in his opinion (and I would agree) is a dangerous thing. he's not saying that everyone should be experts in the field of quantum mechanics, he's saying that people should at least have a basic understanding of science and technology. (kind of like how you should expect people to understand rudimentary grammar and math)



only carl sagan picture I have.
User avatar #142 to #127 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
everyone in school nowadays has at one point or another had physics, so i'd say we do receive a basic understanding of things..

it's hardly dangerous, since there's a variety of corporations that specialize in the same technologies.. each corporation has their team of specialists that are trained to be experts in the field.. it only gets dangerous when monopolies take over a field.

then everything coming from that one source should be doubted unless they are highly supervised by an unbiased medium..

i, myself have a motorcycle.. the only thing i know about it is the VERY basic, spark plug, brakes, etc.. i wouldn't know how to fix it if anything goes wrong... we have mechanics for such an occasion..
User avatar #148 to #142 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
"everyone in school nowadays has at one point or another had physics"

1.) not all of society has been through school
2.) that is not true. when I was in high school (I'm in college now, so that wasn't long ago), physics, anatomy, and other advanced sciences were not required, so no, everyone has not had physics.

"it's hardly dangerous"
it's dangerous for society to not have a grasp on simple knowledge. we're not talking about corporations, because that is COMPLETELY irrelevant. "specialization" is not even relevant here. it's important for a human being to be knowledgeable about science in a civilized society

You need to login to view this link

it's important to understand science, and this link points out areas where basic understanding of science is important in order for a person to be able to make intelligent decisions
User avatar #151 to #148 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
1.) i did say in school...
2.) i did not know this, apparently, the school standards here are higher than where you're from.. i came from a public school and even there, i had physics and chemistry..
3.) it IS relevant, even though corporations' main goal is profits, they are bound by law to have certain health standards...
4.) >A good science education teaches critical thinking skills.
i'd like proof of this statement's validity... i highly doubt my education has anything to do with my critical thinking..
5.) not everything has to be spoon-fed, knowing pesticides are unhealthy should be common knowledge, if not, it's not the school's responsibility to teach them.. parents should be able to provide you with reason more so than schools imho...
6.) any person who cares enough about the decision (s)he is about to make should look into whatever background is relevant in the decision.. this knowledge should not automatically be there, for instance.. suppose i wanted to have laser eye surgery, it would be my responsibility to weigh out the pros and cons, it wouldn't have to be the schools' responsibility to have educated me on the subject in advance...
User avatar #152 to #151 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
1.) whoops
2.) mine was a public school as well. advanced sciences were not required, unless you were attempting an "advanced diploma" (which means **** all)
3.) no, because you are COMPLETELY missing the point. the post is about scientific literacy
4.) critical thinking is in fact one of the main teaching points of science classes. whether you believe it affected you isn't relevant, as it is part of the curriculum.
5.) you're again confusing education with scientific literacy. your point is irrelevant. things are common knowledge to you, because I'm assuming you're scientifically literate. not everyone is.
6.) that's the goddamn point, broseph. we're not talking about schools, we're talking about understanding science and technology. no one is claiming that it's the school's responsibility (by no one, I mean neither you, Carl Sagan, or I), the point is that people should understand what's going on (which is what you just said)
User avatar #153 to #152 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
sorry about that, i thought you implied it was the school's objective to provide us with these BASIC scientific literacies and that even my rudimentary knowledge was insufficient..

though i do think we should just remove all warning labels and let natural selection weed out all the bad apples..

(sorry if i'm too blunt or am making less sense, i've had a few beers)
User avatar #154 to #153 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/24/2012) [-]
nah, man. just refuting your original comment about specialization, because the issue is a general lack of basic understanding, not in-depth research and what-not.
User avatar #47 to #1 - junkmanrs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I believe Sagan was speaking more to scientific literacy
#9 to #1 - traelos
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
I love you.
User avatar #11 to #9 - nogphille
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
i love you too, morgan freeman
User avatar #12 to #11 - traelos
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
Titty Sprinkles.
User avatar #13 to #12 - nogphille
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
did you bring the butfor?
User avatar #14 to #13 - traelos
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
Which one? I brought the butt for sitting, but the butt for pooping is back home...
#58 - pepemex
Reply +62 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
If he's so smart, how come he's dead?
User avatar #8 - shiifter
Reply +41 123456789123345869
(12/22/2012) [-]
I know about science and technology.

If you put pennies in coke, they come out clean.

phones function better with more bars

See? They should have put me at Chernobyl.
User avatar #50 to #8 - thisonewins
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
The question is, is that cocaine or cola...

At least, that is my fetish question.
#52 to #8 - anon id: c0afdc67
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I understand their still looking for people to build/maintain the "Sarcophagus"
#22 to #8 - arcobeleno
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I read that "If you put penises in coke"...

Goddammit Op, you and your wacky experiments.
#45 to #22 - ichbinlecher
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I am sure that works too.
#31 - snakefire
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Carl sagan is like... my hero   
   
get this ****, so I'm christian, just like the rest of my family, and my mom wouldnt let me get a carl sagan poster because he was an atheist....
Carl sagan is like... my hero

get this ****, so I'm christian, just like the rest of my family, and my mom wouldnt let me get a carl sagan poster because he was an atheist....
#169 to #31 - anon id: b93d889f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2013) [-]
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality." -Carl Sagan
User avatar #170 to #169 - snakefire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2013) [-]
thank you anon
User avatar #101 to #31 - thegreatmateusbear
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
He said Atheism was stupid, he's an Agnostic.
#124 to #101 - coolcalx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan is referring specifically Gnostic Atheism, in which one doesn't believe in a higher power, and outright denies the existence of one. Carl Sagan would be what's known as an "Agnostic Atheist" in that he did not believe in a higher power, but he also didn't deny the existence of one.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not separate ideologies, they must be interwoven. (see the chart)
User avatar #143 to #101 - mrthezho
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
That is pretty impossible...
#42 to #31 - ichbinlecher
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
That makes me sad (also a Christian). The guy is brilliant, even if I disagree with some of conclusions. Perhaps you will have a chance come college.
#139 - I Am Monkey
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
That's a pretty stupid quote. Why should everyone waste time knowing exactly how the technology in their life works? That's completely counterproductive and inefficient. Civilization began when man developed division of labor. Rather than have everyone be equally equip to do *******, each would hone their skills in a particular area and work in collaboration with others.

The same principal applies today; why should everyone know how their technology works? Are we supposed to spend years studying advanced electronics and computer programming so as not to be condescended to by Mr Sagan? No, we've got to learn something useful so that we might contribute something to society. Not that those things aren't useful, but they'd hardly be if every man on earth had a degree in electrical engineering and nobody to fill every other niche of society.

It's easy to look down from your pedestal on the uneducated peons and say "Bro, do you even science?", but before you do I suggest you take a moment to think who made your clothes, wrote the music on your iPod, picked your vegetables, build your house, because they sure as hell don't have or need a background in science to serve their purpose.
User avatar #140 to #139 - koolaidsauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
this
#144 to #139 - anonrandom
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#146 to #139 - swagbot
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
true.

just don't turn this into an excuse to not know ******* anything about science at all.
User avatar #74 - illumiknight
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
In 1969, Nasa took three men to the moon. All of their technology combined is about equal to an iPhone.
#99 to #74 - anon id: 67ae8dbf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Hahahaha sure keep believing that NASA took men to the moon.
#125 to #99 - coolcalx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
0/10 troll, but if you want proof, you can watch footage of the moon rove and you'll see dust particles being shot into a parabolic arc from the wheels. if you calculate the trajectory of the dust, you'll see that it's impossible for this to have taken place on Earth, as the gravity would have to be significantly less than Earth's. (you can't change gravity. you'd have to leave the Earth to cause that effect)
User avatar #116 to #99 - ilovehitler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
You're right, it was Hitler.
He's been behind everything good that has happened.
#100 to #74 - Moosoulja
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Actually the phone reference is like 10 years old, they said it was more than the phone in the comparison. An iphone is vastly more advanced than anything used in the moon landing.
Actually the phone reference is like 10 years old, they said it was more than the phone in the comparison. An iphone is vastly more advanced than anything used in the moon landing.
User avatar #115 to #100 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Whenever people say that, I can only think "yeah, but can your phone get people to the moon?"
#150 to #115 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
#77 to #74 - vvhoozy **User deleted account**
+5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #77 - kamehamehanurd
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
No, it was the computers, they were about as powerful as an iPhone. Give or take a couple minor specs.
User avatar #87 to #86 - illumiknight
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
User avatar #80 to #77 - illumiknight
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
To be honest, I have no idea. It was just something I saw on Yahoo a while back.
#26 - anon id: 15de8f64
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on economics and finance, in which hardly anyone knows anything about economics and finance." Carl Sagan if he had studied economics instead science at university
#28 to #26 - pickledpee
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Because there are an equal amount of lawyers, bankers and people in finance as scientists, engineers and doctors.
#34 to #28 - anon id: 15de8f64
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
'We live in a society exquisitely dependent on spiderman, in which hardly anyone knows anything about spiderman." Carl Sagan if he was spiderman instead of a scientist.
#32 to #28 - anon id: 15de8f64
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I don't get it.
User avatar #33 to #32 - pickledpee
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
The internet is a terrible place to try and induce sarcasm via regular text. I must say I ****** up.
#121 - kraetyz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Didn't Cracked talk about this somewhere?

People know about science and technology, it's just that we're 10-20 years behind actual scientists. This is because they've studied their entire lives about that specific thing and devoted years to expand on previous research. New discoveries and technologies are come up with every day, and a normal person who might read the news once in a while and remembers most science classes from school won't see all of it. Even if he saw it, he probably wouldn't understand it because, as said, the people working on new technology and top-tier science have studied all their lives for that kind of ****.

I dunno. I just think people shouldn't put too high expectations on each other in regards to scientific knowledge, because if you were to keep up with the news, you wouldn't have time for a job. Unless you become a scientist.
User avatar #128 to #121 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
That's a very reasonable way to look at it. The layman can't really hope to be as knowing as the cutting-edge specialist, that's kind of self-explanatory.

It would be nice and do society as a whole a lot of good if we could reduce that disconnect to a couple of years instead a couple of decades.
Surely there must be a way.
#132 to #128 - kraetyz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Not really. We can only cut it down by as long as the people working on top-tier stuff have studied. Considering most true breakthroughs in physics come from people in their 40s and up, I wouldn't bet on making that gap smaller. The common man will always be behind, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
User avatar #134 to #132 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I have to respectfully disagree with that.
It's possible to cut down the delay to the amount of time it takes to explain it to a layman.

It took roughly ten-thousand years to formulate Newton's law of universal gravitation for the first time while it took my physics teacher a single lesson to explain it to me, along with how and why it is not the best model we have any more.
And that's a good thing, no doubt.
#138 to #134 - kraetyz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Oh yeah, you're right about that. xD Good way to put it.
#53 - xtremedeath
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
I read the quote...then saw Carl Sagan   
   
Remember Familiy Guy Redneck Episode.
I read the quote...then saw Carl Sagan

Remember Familiy Guy Redneck Episode.
User avatar #55 to #53 - heroicvenom
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
the universe was created by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
#85 to #55 - anon id: d27d92a9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
If that is so, then who created God?
User avatar #107 to #85 - mcderfenschmirt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
Maybe he created himself.....or HERself.
User avatar #93 to #85 - tehlulzbringer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
God was created by Velociraptors
User avatar #40 - generaljosh
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/23/2012) [-]
That's not a bad thing. It's the magic of specialization, without which we would all still be subsistence farmers