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


Anonymous comments allowed.
#58 - pepemex ONLINE (12/23/2012) [-]
If he's so smart, how come he's dead?
User avatar #1 - nogphille (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 #78 to #1 - TheBigGummyBear (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 #2 to #1 - teranin [OP]ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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]ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 (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 (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 (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.
#160 to #158 - coolcalx (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 (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 (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 (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.
User avatar #164 to #161 - coolcalx (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (12/24/2012) [-]
*like in Greece, Rome, and Egyptian belief.
User avatar #162 to #161 - pokemonstheshiz (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 (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 #47 to #1 - junkmanrs (12/23/2012) [-]
I believe Sagan was speaking more to scientific literacy
#9 to #1 - traelos ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
I love you.
User avatar #11 to #9 - nogphille (12/22/2012) [-]
i love you too, morgan freeman
User avatar #12 to #11 - traelos ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Titty Sprinkles.
User avatar #13 to #12 - nogphille (12/22/2012) [-]
did you bring the butfor?
User avatar #14 to #13 - traelos ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Which one? I brought the butt for sitting, but the butt for pooping is back home...
User avatar #74 - illumiknight (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
Hahahaha sure keep believing that NASA took men to the moon.
#125 to #99 - coolcalx (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 ONLINE (12/23/2012) [-]
You're right, it was Hitler.
He's been behind everything good that has happened.
#100 to #74 - Moosoulja (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 ONLINE (12/23/2012) [-]
Whenever people say that, I can only think "yeah, but can your phone get people to the moon?"
#77 to #74 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #77 - kamehamehanurd (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
User avatar #80 to #77 - illumiknight (12/23/2012) [-]
To be honest, I have no idea. It was just something I saw on Yahoo a while back.
User avatar #8 - shiifter (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
The question is, is that cocaine or cola...

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

Goddammit Op, you and your wacky experiments.
#45 to #22 - ichbinlecher (12/23/2012) [-]
I am sure that works too.
#121 - kraetyz (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 (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 (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 (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
Oh yeah, you're right about that. xD Good way to put it.
#53 - xtremedeath (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
#85 to #55 - anon (12/23/2012) [-]
If that is so, then who created God?
User avatar #107 to #85 - mcderfenschmirt (12/23/2012) [-]
Maybe he created himself.....or HERself.
User avatar #93 to #85 - tehlulzbringer (12/23/2012) [-]
God was created by Velociraptors
#31 - snakefire (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....
User avatar #101 to #31 - thegreatmateusbear (12/23/2012) [-]
He said Atheism was stupid, he's an Agnostic.
#124 to #101 - coolcalx (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
That is pretty impossible...
#169 to #31 - anon (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 (01/01/2013) [-]
thank you anon
#42 to #31 - ichbinlecher (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 (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 (12/23/2012) [-]
#146 to #139 - swagbot (12/23/2012) [-]

just don't turn this into an excuse to not know ******* anything about science at all.
#48 - deadmuerto (12/23/2012) [-]
**deadmuerto rolled a random image posted in comment #30 at All of my want ** my specialty
#68 to #48 - drsalty (12/23/2012) [-]
the government's postition regarding a manned mission to mars.
#72 to #68 - deadmuerto (12/23/2012) [-]
they found out there were no Mars Bars
#76 to #72 - drsalty (12/23/2012) [-]
None? crap.
#79 to #76 - deadmuerto (12/23/2012) [-]
also Democrats are in power and it's a RED planet
#82 to #79 - drsalty (12/23/2012) [-]
Partisanship strikes again! or maybe they didn't want to affiliate with martians, knowing their warlike nature and how much libs are total hippies.
#37 - wertyoguy (12/23/2012) [-]
the galaxy formed over billions and billions of years...
User avatar #49 to #37 - CHARGERZ ONLINE (12/23/2012) [-]
Or a flash of a second to some beings looking at our universe with a microscope.
User avatar #120 - MythBuster (12/23/2012) [-]
i don't like this quote.. here's the definition of technology "The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes." scientists and inventors do their thing to make us smarter as a whole. back hundreds of years ago, to become amazing at math, it took money and knowledge. since the invention of the calculator, you really don't need either to do so functions that would have deemed you a genius if we were in those days. i think this quote makes Mr. Sagan look like a prick, why should you have to know how something works if there's someone smart enough to do that for you?
User avatar #130 to #120 - techketzer (12/23/2012) [-]
Well, many wonders of engineering back in the day (windmills, watermills, etc.) were constructed by people who had no clue what the hell a basic multiplication was.
Still, they built machines and mechanisms likely neither of us both would be able to create in their stead.

Why know and understand something yourself when there's someone else to do it for you?
Simple. If something happens to that guy, the knowledge isn't lost if you're there to carry on. You yourself might have to be that "someone else" one day.
User avatar #135 to #130 - MythBuster (12/23/2012) [-]
that doesn't bring up a valid argument... the guy invented something and people follow the patent and instructions and continue to make it without necessarily knowing the science behind it ... books and media make it so it's not necessary to know everything off the top of our heads.
User avatar #136 to #135 - techketzer (12/23/2012) [-]
Yes, no one has to know it by heart; but once we lose understanding of the basic principle it's only a matter of time until we lose the technology itself.
User avatar #137 to #136 - MythBuster (12/23/2012) [-]
..... but we won't.. as long as humans need a technology, people will learn it.. that's called a job. in most cases, in any given career field, you get paid more by difficulty or demand of the technology making that the reason that a relevant technology will never just disappear.. increase in demand for a career field means and increase in income, means it's a bigger appeal to people, meaning that they will learn whatever it is that they need to learn
User avatar #15 - awesomenessdefined (12/22/2012) [-]
This whole channel is a testament to that.
User avatar #40 - generaljosh (12/23/2012) [-]
That's not a bad thing. It's the magic of specialization, without which we would all still be subsistence farmers
User avatar #131 - zonedguru (12/23/2012) [-]
Yeah because people like you complain about it all the time.
User avatar #57 - radtroll (12/23/2012) [-]
I always wondered, if we had some kine of a global disaster and everything got destroyed, how long will it take us to rebuild the world as we know today ?
seems scary since most people don't know **** about how anything works ..
User avatar #129 to #57 - piecejr (12/23/2012) [-]
Not to mention how much porn would be lost.... Oh god, does anyone keep hard copies of porn? god dammit what if there's a disaster and no one has anymore porn...
User avatar #59 to #57 - yunablade (12/23/2012) [-]
Thats why we have so many databases and books in safeheavens to keep knowledge from disapearing.

Even if it were to disappear we would most surely rediscover it with time
User avatar #60 to #59 - radtroll (12/23/2012) [-]
that's why I believe that keeping hard copies of important information is a must, keeping them as computer data is not safe
#24 - anon (12/23/2012) [-]
Carl Sagan is kind of an idiot, for someone who claims to be so smart.

He clearly doesn't realize that individuals are specialized to produce products that people with different skills (or few skills at all) can use effectively. I don't have to know how a car works to use it for quick transportation; you don't have to know how programming works to play a computer game.

This actually reminds me of the Einstein image that's often posted with the approximate quote: "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live it's entire life believing it's stupid", or something like that.

But remember everyone, Carl Sagan knows everything. Like how we're all magical stardust faeries from outer space.
User avatar #126 to #24 - coolcalx (12/23/2012) [-]
"Like how we're all magical stardust faeries from outer space."

Carl Sagan's statement that we're all made of star stuff is completely accurate. I don't know why you threw that statement in there, but it makes you look like an imbecile (and a complete dick)
User avatar #96 to #24 - RuthlssUnicorn (12/23/2012) [-]
He is not saying everyone needs to know everything about how the world and universe works, but it would be better if we had a more general knowledge of it.

If your car brakes down, wouldn't you like to at least have some idea of what is wrong with it? Or if your game keeps crashing, why go though the trouble of buying a new computer or software upgrades to fix it.

I'm not saying Carl Sagan is right completely, but I think you are blowing it a little out of proportion to say this man is an idiot.
#44 to #24 - ichbinlecher (12/23/2012) [-]
Even in the case of specialization, it is important to know some things like the fact you should change you oil, which way to turn the wheel if you fish tailing, or what type of gas you need. The issue is people who believe things like all disease is an excess of mucus or that if you drink x gallons of water a day you will never get sick. This is a lack of basic understanding of science.
User avatar #51 - xhelliscoldx (12/23/2012) [-]
we live in a society were pizza gets to your house before the cops
User avatar #56 - wbossint (12/23/2012) [-]
Society breeds youth to want to be movie stars and singers when they grow up.
Society pays too much attention to celebrities.

Ironically, I think movies are a great vehicle to change that. Hollywood can figure out ways to make being a congressman cool. They probably already have. Otherwise, who in their right mind would want to be a politician rather than a movie star who bangs models?
User avatar #43 - konradkurze (12/23/2012) [-]
once upon a time, the mainstream people had a reasonable measure of skill in most things....then democracy made society a bunch of lazy bitches who rely upon specialists to do everything for them
#69 to #43 - drsalty (12/23/2012) [-]
not necessarily democracy, more like the industrial revolution allowing a reasonable expectation of goods
User avatar #97 to #69 - konradkurze (12/23/2012) [-]
not really

when germany was industrialized and had a nationalist government, people still had the skills to do many things in life....then WW2 came along, allies marched in, forced democracy down germany's throat and within a generation everyone was retarded relying on specialists to handle trades
User avatar #5 - joeyliquid (12/22/2012) [-]
I'm trying to become a chemist engineer, so that I can help refine processes of produces chemicals. I know science.. ish..
#23 to #5 - daveduke (12/23/2012) [-]
>Hard Science
Oh boy
User avatar #25 to #23 - joeyliquid (12/23/2012) [-]
I did say ish. Also please look up what a chemical engineer is before you look down on them. I know it says the word engineer but really it does a lot more then you expect. Chemical engineering is the branch of engineering that applies the physical sciences (e.g., chemistry and physics) and/or life sciences (e.g., biology, microbiology and biochemistry) together with mathematics and economics to processes that convert raw materials or chemicals into more useful or valuable forms. Basically after I copy/pasted wikipedia descriptions, it's basically just making things become more efficient and guess what.. "Hard Science" tends to use up a lot of materials. Oh I also gain £85k pay check by the time I hit 30 or more if I move to the America.
#27 to #25 - daveduke (12/23/2012) [-]
Just ******* with you, i understand the importance of engineering and wish you a happy and prosperous life.
User avatar #30 to #27 - alrodi (12/23/2012) [-]
Strangely, i read that in his voice
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)