Difference between revisions of "Talk:Carl Sagan"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Contact and Religion: new section)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
::::Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated [[Fred Singer]] about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like [[nuclear winter]]? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)
 
::::Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated [[Fred Singer]] about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like [[nuclear winter]]? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  
OK what I am not getting is that conservapedia is trying to be a resource. Yet on an article about Carl Sagan you fail to mention'
+
 
1. His numerous books
+
On the line referencing Sagan's "gullible fans" and "pseudoscience fantasies", this seems simply too slanderous to count as an informative statement that deserves a spot in an encyclopedia. I'd vote for removing this line. Any objections?[[User:AndrewWi|AndrewWi]] 15:50, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
2. His famous PBS program Cosmos
+
::::Yes and you did not show the comments were slanderous. I did add material as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
3. Award for Public Understanding of Science presented by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP)  
+
::::: "Gullible" is a subjective description, given without any source to support it, and was thus slanderous. However, I see you've taken that out and have included references to explain "pseudoscience fantasies", so I won't press the point. The section on the Barna Group seems to be lifted from the "Another Atheist Pothead" satire, and more addresses atheism rather than Carl Sagan's work. Perhaps this should be moved to the [[Atheism]] page? [[User:AndrewWi|AndrewWi]] 15:50, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
4. Medal for Excellence in Public Communication in Planetary Science presented since 1998 by the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences (AAS/DPS) for
+
 
5. NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal
+
== Contact and Religion ==
6. Peabody Award
+
 
7. Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction
+
Didn't the end of "Contact" at least somewhat imply the existence of a greater power such as God? On the other hand, Canadian science-fiction author Robert J Sawyer said that "Sagan is no more obligated to believe [the religious themes of Contact] than George Lucas is to believe in The Force". Is this worth mentioning?
The only thing you can discuss is that one prediction he made, about kuwait oil fires did not come true?? And you don't even have a source for that prediction?? I realize Sagan is someone you would call liberal and therefore your goal is to smear him, but could you at least make the attempt to pretend to be an actual information source? Come on if you want this site to be taken seriously and not written off as a bunch of disgruntled right wing extremist loons, you have to at least pretend you care about facts and data.
+

Latest revision as of 21:28, 6 March 2012

Going to have to revisit this article. Carl Sagan brought science and astronomy in to the mainstream in the '80s and inspired many to get involve in the sciences. He was a brilliant writer and speaker on many topics...much more than just discussing the possibility of life outside of our solar system. Brewer13210 07:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I was reading his stuff in the 70s as a school kid.
WhatIsG0ing0n 07:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
My first introduction to Carl Sagan came in 1980 when Cosmos first aired on PBS. Both informative and inspirational, it made some long lasting impressions on me. Brewer13210 09:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I was 3 when Cosmos came out, and I still remember sitting with my father, in the dark, watching the 'spaceship of the mind' hurdling through space, visiting the planets. Ah, memories...I know that is the impetus behind my interest in science. WesleySHello! 21:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated Fred Singer about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like nuclear winter? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)


On the line referencing Sagan's "gullible fans" and "pseudoscience fantasies", this seems simply too slanderous to count as an informative statement that deserves a spot in an encyclopedia. I'd vote for removing this line. Any objections?AndrewWi 15:50, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes and you did not show the comments were slanderous. I did add material as well. conservative 04:30, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
"Gullible" is a subjective description, given without any source to support it, and was thus slanderous. However, I see you've taken that out and have included references to explain "pseudoscience fantasies", so I won't press the point. The section on the Barna Group seems to be lifted from the "Another Atheist Pothead" satire, and more addresses atheism rather than Carl Sagan's work. Perhaps this should be moved to the Atheism page? AndrewWi 15:50, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

Contact and Religion

Didn't the end of "Contact" at least somewhat imply the existence of a greater power such as God? On the other hand, Canadian science-fiction author Robert J Sawyer said that "Sagan is no more obligated to believe [the religious themes of Contact] than George Lucas is to believe in The Force". Is this worth mentioning?