Cosmos by Carl Sagan Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.34 You Save: $3.65 (46%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.35 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Cosmos
Book Review: A jargon-free book that invokes the imaginaton
Summary: 5 Stars
The best science book I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Sagan describes the Cosmos in such a wonderful way I actually regret never having pursued astronomy at a younger age. Cosmos should be made required reading, if not for the insight it provides about the universe, then for its ability to make one imagine limitless possibilities. From Thales math to Keplers physics to Hubbles astronomy, Sagan is coherent yet entertaining. Cosmos is excellent.Book Review: A masterpiece in popular science
Summary: 5 Stars
I read the book after wtaching Sagan's TV series, as many people of my generation. And it had a great influence in my scientific career. Few other books can compete with such a lively vision of science. Thanks, Carl.Book Review: A must read if you consider the Universe an enigma!
Summary: 5 Stars
Very thought provoking. Though lesser material than the full edition, its worth the read for the price. If you like an abundance of images, you will be disappointed. One of the best books I have read so far.Book Review: A question regarding cosmic optimism
Summary: 5 Stars
Most of the readers and reviewers of this book speak of it with wonder and excitement, pleasure and gratitude. Many call it the best popular science book ever written. A number speak of the way it changed their lives, and led them to take deeper interest in scientific enterprises.
I also upon viewing the popular series on television years ago was caught up with this kind of enthusiasm. There was a sense of learning and understanding the latest picture of the universe the best minds of mankind had been able to put together.
I remember regretting it when I missed an episode.
I believe I read the book when it first came out. A couple of reviewers have indicated that some of the science is a bit dated, superseded by developments in fields in which new discoveries are happening all the time.
Nonetheless at the very same time I was so enthusiastic about Sagan's presentation I did feel a certain reservation. It is the reservation of one or two other reviewers I have seen on this site. For Sagan the Cosmos begins with an absence of Intelligence and moves toward greater and greater Intelligence and Understanding with the development of Mankind. For many of us this picture is questionable , for we hold with the idea of a Creator not simply at the Beginning of the Process but throughhout. Sagan and I suspect many who read this will say simply ' unverifiable' and ' non-falsifiable' and therefore non- scientific.' I would counter with something like this. That there is a kind of false hope presented in the story if we make it seems as if the place we have in the Cosmos is one of ever- increasing power, knowledge, understanding. The truth is that the vast worlds opened to us by our new knowledge and scientific instruments are vast worlds largely of dust and emptiness. And that the vast stretches of time too make it seem as if our moment is one small lost one before humanity in some way ceases to exist,either through our own ' Progress'in weapon- making or through some cosmic development we simply have no control over. The picture of mastery and optimism in Sagan's Cosmos I want to say is not borne out by conclusive evidence. Seti or not, ' the silence of the infinite spaces still can cast us into dread' This is not meant to be an anti- scientific diatribe . I too share the sense of wonder and appreciation which comes with the chronicle of developing human understanding of the universe. I also though wonder if Humanity does not need , and is incomplete without the idea of a Creator to whom we owe our origin and our end.
Book Review: A testament to Carl Sagan's convictions
Summary: 3 Stars
As the years go by, this book ceases to be an up-to-date popularization of astronomy, and more of a testament to Carl Sagan's convictions and optimism with science. As a youth, was enchanted by the series, and grateful for the important principles and fact about science was being taught. We need scientists; we need to popularize science; we need to do all of this necessary hard research that raises our standard of living.
Nevertheless, there are several problems with Sagan's approach. The first is with evolution. His fundamental error is category mistake: evolution is not primarily a scientific question, but a historical question, with the science being an auxiliary in reconstructing the historical event.
Secondly, Sagan confuses "science fact" (empirically verifiable data), with his rhetorical flights of fancy. Whenever he uses weasel words--"perhaps," "undoubtedly," without a question, "it is safe to assume"--you know that the science has ended, and Sagan's tall tales are beginning. For example, chapter 7 contains a stream of thought passage about primitive life. Unless Sagan's is claiming to be undergoing past-life regression like "The Star-Rover," this passage is scientifically invalid. Additionally, Sagan provides no disclaimers, and so an unnecessary burden is shifted to the reader in sifting the wheat from the chaff.
Another fundamental error has to do with extra-terrestrial civilizations. He has two fatal assumptions. First, he assumes that these civilizations are more advanced than we are: "Their science and technology would be far beyond ours" (258), "We must be the most backwards technical civilization in the galaxy." (255). Since we have not had any contact (ahem!), he cannot possibly know this. The real question is--why does Sagan believe this? An why does he constantly uses these as-yet-to-be-discovered aliens as his amanuenses? And why does he attach so much mystical hope in these unknown, and as-yet-to-be-proved-to-exits beings?
The other assumption is that these ETs will be benevolent. In another book, Sagan has a chapter called "When Scientists Know Sin," denouncing Teller and SDI. If human scientist know sin, why not the ET scientists also?
We need the military: self-preservation is the first law of nature, and government's first function is maintaining law and order and protecting life, liberty, and property (Federalist 3),. Alexander Hamilton observed, "Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?" (Federalist 6) This is not just for political scientists, but also to our hypothetical ET visitors.
In the concluding paragraphs to chapter 12, Sagan, once again, is spinning a tall tale: he speculates about the insights we would receive on art, politics, religion, and so forth. The problem is that if ETs had a different biology, then they would have a different morality.
For example, in "Speaker For the Dead," Orson Scott Card has an alien race of that, when killed, turn into trees, unlike humans who die when killed. Consequently, "Thou shalt not kill" would be meaningless for such an alien species. In fact, it would be detrimental, since preserving live would hinder this next level of progression.
The same thing applies to politics. James Madison said, "But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (Federalist, 51).
Government for humans, for angels, and for aliens, would of necessity be different due to their different natures. In fact, it is quite possible that ET morality would be totally irrelevant. And the same thing applies for philosophy, religion, art, and most anything else. We have no hard data--we do not know.
Another problem has to do with his passive anti-Christianity. Admittedly, during the Middle Ages and early renaissance, the Roman Church was hard on the astronomers. As a Mormon, I agree with him. However, he paradoxically denounces Western Christianity, yet he puts credence in every other non-Christian creation myths: after citing aboriginal Australian, Chinese, Pacific Island, and the Popol Vuh creation stories, he points out their flaws, then quickly adds "But those other creation stories are worthy of our deep respect." (Ch 10, p.213).
Behind this paradox is the incorrect notion of a "Nobel Savage." As a counterpoint, I suggest King Kalakaua's "The Legends and Myths of Hawaii." The first reason is that you see that anciently, the early Hawaiians had their own prejudices and turf wars, no different that Renaissance Italy. Secondly, for some reason, the early Hawaiian legends are identical to those in the Hebrew Scriptures (33-35).
So Sagan, with these flights of fancy, is violating his own rule: "whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded." (Ch. 13, p. 276)
Over all, this book is a mixture of good and bad--90% good, 10% bad. Over time, it is slowly getting dated, but that is because we are making so many advances in science. And this is what Carl Sagan would want.
PS--"Sex was invented" (p. 282). Doesn't the word invented imply an inventor? Oops!