The need for another Sagan

[The Bad Astronomer]

When I talk with my astronomer friends, a lot of them lament the loss of Carl Sagan as a spokesman for science. We all agree that there isn't one, clear person who is taking his place. A lot of us do a lot of public outreach, but there is no one person who is crystallizing the essence of science, and making it clear to the public.

A friend of mine today told me about an article at The Space Review that says this exact same thing. This article really makes the point; I agree with it almost entirely. It's a good read.

[dvb]

Well Mr BA, you do a fine job yourself of making things clear to the public.

You do after all have a website dedicated to the pursuit of science.

Have you considered yourself?

[ToSeek]

I linked to that article here, but it's worth mentioning again. We do seem to lack someone who has both the credibility and the eloquence to make the case for wonders of science and astronomy.

[ngc3314]

I linked to that article here, but it's worth mentioning again. We do seem to lack someone who has both the credibility and the eloquence to make the case for wonders of science and astronomy.

One "problem" may be the very proliferation of media outlets - there are many cable TV outlets, many print outlets often including electronic, more news networks - than in Sagan's heyday. This situation gives many more opportunities for getting a message out, but makes it that much more difficult for an individual to achieve the enormous level of name recognition that he had, as almost the first science spokesman of the US media age. There are a fair number of people with the eloquence, but getting the credibility is much harder because one has to be known to slices of a much more fractured and diverse audience.

So, Phil - when are you up for Letterman???

[Cougar]

When I talk with my astronomer friends, a lot of them lament the loss of Carl Sagan as a spokesman for science. We all agree that there isn't one, clear person who is taking his place. A lot of us do a lot of public outreach, but there is no one person who is crystallizing the essence of science, and making it clear to the public.

True. There is no one person the general public can focus on. But more and more scientists are now engaging in this important task of popularizing their own fields. This may follow from Sagan's example, or it may result from the realization of how widespread is scientific illiteracy - and what an important job it is to combat such ignorance and regressive attitudes.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Alright, we know what the problem is. How do we fix it?

[mopc]

I agree with dvb: you, BA, are doing a lot to divulge and popularize science, and I add: maybe even better than Sagan, because you humour is great, the irony that's present even in the choice of the "Bad Astronomy" website, and in all the articles. I believe that if you have a good voice and TV training you could do an even greater job.

I myself also intend to be an explainer of science, I'm graduated as a journalist and I read a lot about science, having grown up devouring relativity articles on Brazilian science magazines and later, let down with the educational system, straying into linguistics.

I even intend to open up a "Bad Linguistics" website - it's a science even more poorly understood than astronomy and physics.

Besides, you have already been on a major tv-show, if indirectly, when they almost quoted you on that White House show in the episode about standing an egg on the vernal equinox! I actually, while watching the show, went to your site to see why that was "bad". Then at the end they said the same thing you had written!

[George]

Hmmmm...good vibes, BA! Like your thinkin (derived from indirect evidence, of course, like the rest of us)

Your link says it nicely. For instance...

What we need is another Carl Sagan, who doesn’t talk down to the general (ignorant) public, but also wants to bring them along for the ride through this wondrous and mysterious universe.

Carl had that down home family feel that could feed us with cool stuff. It seemed it wasn't about him but the focus was on the greatness out there and he presented it with purpose and direction.

I am suprised the media hasn't found someone to convey the majesty of the current findings within the heavens. Dark Matter hidding. Dark Energy overypowering gravity. We're in a revolution are we not? The weapons are Spitzer, Keck, colliders, Probe B, GRB detectors, Cassini, etc. And to add some current drama....Hubble and Dextre.

And for a leader....well...here was Aurora's answer to that question...
Science Advisor

I will assume you want to know wether to add more water to your seeds....

Yes. Although I have not heard you or seen you, your writting style is on the mark and your views are balanced. You're not afraid of a little confrontation.

Are you really wanting much advice from us at this time?

[lyford]

A lot of us do a lot of public outreach, but there is no one person who is crystallizing the essence of science, and making it clear to the public.

It may well be that Carl had the right combination of gifts and timing. The conditions were right for the Beatles, but there will never be another group that becomes iconic like that again. Maybe media now is too fragmented with cable and the internet for one voice to emerge as ambassador of science.
Ironically, technology that can bring the wonder of discovery live to anyone on the planet may actually work against scientific curiosity. As a teacher, I notice that children seem less amazed at the real world and more turned on by simulcra - how many pixels can be pushed through the latest video card. It seems that people would rather focus on the artificial worlds within their tvs, computers and game consoles than reality itself. The things that are important to them and affect their worlds are cultural, not natural. It's not so much a cynicism as a filter that colors their entire worldview; the propensity for admiring the cosmos is dulled by the brighter colors, snappier edits and richer sounds that television and computers can offer. The artificial is more real than, well, reality is to them.
But then again that Animal Planet guy seems to be known everywhere - Crikey!

PS I miss Stephen Jay Gould as well -

[Normandy6644]

Brian Greene is getting there, though so far his media attention has been very specified for string theory, not astronomy in general. But I also think it's true that the world needs another popularizer of science to get people interested in the hard (but most interesting) questions again.

[Doe, John]

I never could finish "The Elegant Universe". It did help me understand a lot of physics theory leading up to string theory, and I liked the idea of one-dimensional strings being the building blocks for particle based on the frequency of their vibrations. When he started describing how the dimensions they would vibrate in could be defined my brain tripped offline. It seemed to unnecessarily complicate a really neat idea. Maybe I need to go back and look at it again.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Has anyone read Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"? The review at Amazon.com says that it explains physics using everyday analogies. Might be what we're looking for here.

[TriangleMan]

For a Sagan-esque person Bill Nye (the Science Guy) has done a pretty good job but his work is geared to younger viewers.

Most Canadians recognize David Suzuki from his work on science and environmental shows. He is currently the host of The Nature of Things.

[George]

Has anyone read Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"? The review at Amazon.com says that it explains physics using everyday analogies. Might be what we're looking for here.

I liked his "Fabric...." best. It was broader than "Elegant Universe" although I was hoping to nail down redshifting ( :-? ).

He does project nicely on tv, too. I am anxious to see you, BA, on the tube. That would sure be....8)

[Yorkshireman]

Agree with lyford and Cougar's comments. In Britain Patrick Moore is probably more famous than Sagan, for his long career as a 'TV Astronomer'. But Sagan had a truly global reach and the scope of his science popularisation went beyond just astronomy into all reaches of science.

Gould and Dawkins were/are excellent popularisers of evolutionary fields, though Dawkins' militant atheism works against him in my opinion. Sagan did not exhibit the agression and hectoring tone that Dawkins too easily lapses into. In any case, their contributions are predominantly in the literary field.

Likewise, Stephen Hawking has put cosmology into the bestseller shelves, but regrettably his motor neurone disease means he will never be able to cross over to fronting a TV documentary series.

[Donnie B.]

I'd agree that, at the present time, no one has emerged to fill the Sagan / Gould / Asimov void as a widely-recognized popularizer of, and spokesman for, science.

If we want to talk about potential candidates for that mantle, I'd mention our Mr. Plait as one. However, my judgement is that the BA still needs more "seasoning" to improve his small-screen impact, and a whole lot more name recognition. Maybe he should work on a recognizable catch phrase... but "BILLions and BILLions" has been taken. :wink:

Another possible successor is a name I've mentioned before: Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of Hayden Planetarium. He's been sharpening his writing skills with his monthly column in Natural History, but so far he hasn't achieved the level of eloquence of the last generation (especially Gould - but then, few ever will). He has started to pop up on documentary shows, and is a fine spokesman for Astronomy as a minority who has succeeded in a technical field.

On the downside, I don't think he's made any attempt to extend beyond Astronomy into more general areas of science, in the mold of an Asimov. And I find his monthly articles to be aimed at a relatively low common denominator, though this may be more his editor's choice than his own. But compared to Gould, his output is rather mundane. (But again, that's a tough comparison for anybody.)

It sure would be nice to see someone achieve the kind of recognition Sagan had, if only for "sound bite" value as a commentator on network news science stories. They often seemed to go to Sagan as a counterbalance to some grand claim. Wasn't he around to comment on the "life in Mars meteorite" story?

[Swift]

I echo the feelings of a lot of people here about Sagan and Gould. I was reading a piece in the food section of our local paper (The Plain Dealer) today about Julia Child and thought that there were some good analogies to Sagan. To a hypothetical marketing person they were both unlikely popular figures and yet through charm, humor, knowledge, and enthusiasm they brought to the American public topics that would not normally be interesting to the average person (astronomy and French cooking). And they are both sorely missed.

[lyford]

I was reading a piece in the food section of our local paper (The Plain Dealer) today about Julia Child and thought that there were some good analogies to Sagan. To a hypothetical marketing person they were both unlikely popular figures and yet through charm, humor, knowledge, and enthusiasm they brought to the American public topics that would not normally be interesting to the average person (astronomy and French cooking). And they are both sorely missed.

Wow - Swift that is right on! =D> Both had that warm infectious gusto and open personalities, but were both obvious geeks in their respective fields. (Geeks in the sense of extreme enthusiasm and deep knowledge in a subject area...)
We need someone humanly accessible (read telegenic) who knows their stuff and lures people in with their enthusiasm. Neil deGrasse Tyson seems promising, but I can't see him hosting Saturday Night Live like Sagan....
Of course, I can't make it through a whole episode of SNL these days anyway!

[The Bad Astronomer]

I appreciate the support (and I was not fishing for it!), and I would love to be doing more, but it ain't happening right now. Maybe soon; we'll see.

But still, the point is there isn't anyone now, when we need it. And even if I were to get out there more, I'm no Sagan. He was extremely well-versed in a great many fields of science, and outside of astronomy and a handful of others I'm pretty much an enthusiastic layman. He was also capable of great prose, and could speak so eloquently at a moment's notice.... I'm more likely to make a joke. That might work in some circles (I wish Jon Stewart read this board!) but it wouldn't in others.

Maybe I'll start asking around at more astronomy meetings and see what others think. I suspect that nothing we do will make any difference; the next person to become science's spokesperson will not be cultivated, or the product of market research. (S)He'll just be at the right place at the right time, say the right things, and go on from there.

[George]

I appreciate the support (and I was not fishing for it!), and I would love to be doing more, but it ain't happening right now. Maybe soon; we'll see.

We weren't sure (which is why I asked). I was starting to work on quite a pep talk (corrected spelling, fewer grammatical errors, some charismatic content) but wasn't sure of your reason for addressing the current icon void.

But still, the point is there isn't anyone now, when we need it. And even if I were to get out there more, I'm no Sagan. He was extremely well-versed in a great many fields of science, and outside of astronomy and a handful of others I'm pretty much an enthusiastic layman. He was also capable of great prose, and could speak so eloquently at a moment's notice.... I'm more likely to make a joke. That might work in some circles (I wish Jon Stewart read this board!) but it wouldn't in others.

Keep in mind that a Sagan clone today would, likely, not do very well. The public appetite varies.
Walter Cronkite was extremely popular as the public was hungry for help during the cold war times. He exhibited great honesty and truth with humility in a fatherly tone and ended each segment with "and that's the way it is..". Times are different. I wish I could tell you just what the public "hunger" is today. You can bet demand for hard truth is foundational. You seem naturally good on this point. Your Tunguska comments were right on. You may well have the right heart and stomach for such an adventure. [See how we like to give you pep talks anyway. ]

Maybe I'll start asking around at more astronomy meetings and see what others think. I suspect that nothing we do will make any difference; the next person to become science's spokesperson will not be cultivated, or the product of market research. (S)He'll just be at the right place at the right time, say the right things, and go on from there.

True. But, you still have to wet bait to catch fish. Try various venues once your desire is clear and your strengths quantified (here we can help, too). It won't likely just happen.

[mike alexander]

One of Gould's favorite phrases was 'contingent facts of history'. It was a contingent fact that Carl Sagan was in the right place at the right time to make a broad impact in electronic media.

A question is: do we need just one? Looking back, I was lucky to grow up and through a time the stars fell on. Asimov, Gould, Clarke, Moore, Eisley, Thomas come immediately to mind on my bookshelves. And the variety of styles! Asimov with his blunt declaratives. Gould with his complex webs. Clarke always poised on the edge of infinity. Eisley ruminative but uplifting (Who could forget his essay The Star Thrower?). Thomas wise in years but youthful in outlook.

With all disrespect, as Calvin Trillin says, we don't need Sagan. We need a dozen. Like him, and different.

Ok, we've got Phil. Like ten thousand lawyrers at the bottom of the sea, it's a good start...

[Chip]

When I talk with my astronomer friends, a lot of them lament the loss of Carl Sagan as a spokesman for science...

Good article!

One critical thinker, astronomy and science advocate we have today is Timothy Ferris, though this doesn't mean that Ferris is the Sagan of today. Ferris has not built up the public exposure that Sagan did in his younger days, with appearances on Johnny Carson and various shows. Also, Ferris is more laid back than Sagan was. However, like Sagan, Ferris has written some really terrific books, such as "Seeing in the Dark" which I highly recommend, "The Whole Shebang" and "The Red Limit." He was a close friend of the late Carl Sagan and introduced the brilliant Ann Druyan to Sagan.

Ferris's science insights were a big influence on Sagan. They would meet and discuss all sorts of imaginative ideas while listening to classical music. Ferris has done only a few PBS specials, which are all excellent, and he has given lectures, but as he points out in a recent email (which some of you may have received if you're on his mailing list,) such things require funding. He has raised half the money for a special PBS program based on "Seeing in the Dark" and is currently seeking a corporate underwriter for the rest.

He's now working on a book that connects parallels between the rise of liberal democracy in the world since 1700 with the rise of science. This is not esoteric stuff. It falls right into the mode of thought we came to expect from both Sagan and Druyan.

Ferris's more recent writings are as follows:
"A New Pathway to the Stars" (The New York Times op-ed page, Sunday, December 21, 2003), "Stumbling into Space" (The New York Review of Books, April 29, 2004), and "The Wonder of Seeing Red" (Los Angeles Times Opinion page, August 24, 2003) – plus a critical assessment of Stephen Spielberg’s Sci-Fi Channel series on alien abductions ("Taken' Off," Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2003), plus the Forward to Hunter S. Thompson's "Kingdom of Fear" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003).

Yes, we still need a "Sagan" to stir the imagination of the public. These folks are among those that were huge influences on him. They have devoted much to dispelling superstition and nonsense in astronomy and science, and I put the BA in their league as well.

We need someone who can present astronomy and science on popular TV with enthusiasm and make intelligent insight appealing again to the general public.

Druyan

Ferris

[Argos]

There are a fair number of people with the eloquence, but getting the credibility is much harder because one has to be known to slices of a much more fractured and diverse audience.

So, Phil - when are you up for Letterman???

I think that Phil Plait qualifies for "taking the place" (if it is a good expression) of Carl Sagan: his work as science/skepticism divulger has already some (if not much - I can´t say it FWIS) national visibility; he obviously knows what he says (thanks to his lustrous education and professional career), which is essential to obtain public credibility; his name sounds well, with a perfect number of syllabes. And, last but not least, he´s young, and good-looking, like Sagan himself used to be. Just perfect for TV. :wink:

Edited for changing terms.

[lyford]

That might work in some circles (I wish Jon Stewart read this board!) but it wouldn't in others.

I don't understand the Daily Show's aversion to big science, especially space missions. Back in the day they used to make fun of the UFO woo woos quite a bit, but now the jokes about MER and Cassini finding dirt are just too simplisitic. They seem to cater to a more educated worldview; don't see how making fun of such great achievements fits in with that.

Interestingly, many scientists seem to go out of their way to be cultured in the arts as well, the converse sadly is untrue. In fact, many in the humanities seem to boast about a lack of scientific and mathematic chops.

I am still a newbie here, but from what I have seen on the website, Phil, you could well make progress towards mediadom. Thou needest a publicist. Get booked more on Science Friday on NPR and less on Coast to Coast. Though I would imagine it would be a lot of work to balance the roles of popular media maven and astronomer: "Let's see - I need to go to a swanky book signing party AND finish the research proposal tonight?"

Science is self correcting, and so is Lyford. I don't know what I was smoking yesterday when I made the Carl Sagan hosting SNL comment. I could have sworn he did a cameo appearance in the late 70's early 80's, but I must have been conflating that with the memory of his Tonight Show spots.

[TriangleMan]

I think that Phil Plait qualifies for "taking the place" (if it is a good expression) of Carl Sagan

Like Phil said his knowledge is more concentrated in physics/astronomy, Sagan had an amazing ability to discuss a diverse range of scientific fields and that would be important in becoming a Sagan-esque figure.

I think some programs are approaching this from the other side by taking a scientific layman who is comfortable on camera and having him explain science (I'm thinking of Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda). Alda does not have an indepth knowledge of all scientific fields but he does a pretty good job of explaining things in ways a layman would understand, probably because he's a layman himself.

[Cougar]

One critical thinker, astronomy and science advocate we have today is Timothy Ferris...

Thanks for the excellent update on Timothy Ferris.

...like Sagan, Ferris has written some really terrific books, such as "Seeing in the Dark" which I highly recommend, "The Whole Shebang" and "The Red Limit."

Sagan wrote the preface to Ferris's Red Limit. I happen to have a first edition of this book signed by Sagan. What do you think this would go for on e-bay? 8)

[junkyardfrog]

BA would be a good choice. I'm one of those people who likes to hear a scientist tell a joke once in a while....



Three other names come to mind:

1. Dr. Craig Venter.

2. Dr. Michio Kaku.

3. Richard Hoagland. Even if you happen to disagree with everything he says, you can't deny that he brings excitement and imagination to science. Science does not have to be boring.

[Spacewriter]

I appreciate the support (and I was not fishing for it!), and I would love to be doing more, but it ain't happening right now. Maybe soon; we'll see.

But still, the point is there isn't anyone now, when we need it. And even if I were to get out there more, I'm no Sagan. He was extremely well-versed in a great many fields of science, and outside of astronomy and a handful of others I'm pretty much an enthusiastic layman. He was also capable of great prose, and could speak so eloquently at a moment's notice.... I'm more likely to make a joke. That might work in some circles (I wish Jon Stewart read this board!) but it wouldn't in others.

Maybe I'll start asking around at more astronomy meetings and see what others think. I suspect that nothing we do will make any difference; the next person to become science's spokesperson will not be cultivated, or the product of market research. (S)He'll just be at the right place at the right time, say the right things, and go on from there.

Phil,

One of the things about Carl Sagan, aside from his zest for explaining things was his lack of hesitancy to kick a few sacred cows around -- not just in religion and politics, but also in science. He also was not ashamed to go for public recognition of what he was trying to do. For THAT he was roundly vilified in some scientific circles, and I often took some of the comments I heard about him from colleagues as nothing more than scientific penis envy. I had a long talk with my co-author about this once -- he was in grad school with Carl and they stayed in pretty close touch throughout the years. He said that Carl knew that some of what he said would rile people up -- and he wanted people to THINK, not just passively accept what anyone told us. Carl was a gifted speaker and he turned people on to the universe and science in a way that many of us are still trying to emulate.

You're right: new Carl Sagan (or Carlie Sagan -- let's not forget those of us of the female side of things who like to popularize science) will come along -- in good time.

I would be very interested to hear what sorts of things you hear from our colleagues at meetings when you bring this up. I do believe we'll all agree that we need somebody -- but we may disagree on who it will be!

[Spacewriter]

Something else to consider: maybe we're looking too hard for a Sagan replacement. Whoever comes along to help bring science to folks may not be a Sagan, but he/she/it WILL have unique qualities to do the job. Much as I wish Carl were still around, I wouldn't want a Sagan wannabe.

[Donnie B.]

Two issues...

First, in the category of "speak of the devil": I just learned that Neil deGrasse Tyson is the host of a major new Nova series on PBS. You may have seen the blurbs for it. It's called Origins and it covers the history of the cosmos from t=0. I'm expecting it to take on the YECs (and their ilk) head-on. It will air in September (on most stations) in two 2-hour chunks on successive days. I hope this raises his profile a bit.

Second, Phil, have you looked into participating more actively in any of the skeptical organizations? Sagan was a fellow (and maybe co-founder) of SCICOP (the Skeptical Inquirer gang). They add new fellows from time to time (Tyson is one). Is that a direction you'd consider?