The Demon Haunted World is pure Carl Sagan. A full volume of Mr. Sagan proving that he was not only smarter than most of us, he was wittier. This book is nothing more than several hundred pages of (I will say successfully) Sagan showing us that there can always be something other than blind belief and taking things at face value and the importance of contemplating them first. The dangers of not thinking and the importance of critical thinking. This book was published in the mid-90s shortly before his passing. He was correct on about the mental state of the world and the dangers of just being superficial in a superficial world. Mostly references and case studies from the pages of time he establishes more than a multitude of reasoning behind the ideas but does not forget to remind the reader that “Hey…I could be wrong about this…but just think about it before jumping to conclusions. Weigh your options, use a little common sense. Then and only then can you make an accurate assumption about said situation.” He does not call us idiots, he only says we act like them most of the time and cause more suffering and grief than is necessary in not only our life but those around us which at times can amount to a mountain of a snowball that takes everyone in its path to a icy grave.
The book is well written and deeply personal. He touches on the aspects of his youth, his family and the ideas that drew him to the stars. The stuff we are all made of. ( )

This is a tribute to clear thinking – to using the tools of scientific reasoning and plain old skepticism to pick out what's real from the hoaxes, scams, and pseudoscience around us. Since it was written almost thirty years ago the examples used in the first part of the book are dated – faces on Mars, crop circles, alien abductions – but the methods it promotes are as relevant today as they were then. Where it hits its stride is in the latter chapters that describe how intellectual curiosity and scientific research have historically built on each other to create applications that were initially unimaginable. In the acknowledgments section Sagan explains how this was written over the course of nearly a decade. As a result it’s not a book to rush through, in fact it’s one worth rereading. ( )

In a world of ungrounded thought, I feel comforted by Sagan's sagely, skeptical words. "Skepticism doesn't sell newspapers," he explains. He was heavily pro-science and upset about America's scientific illiteracy which fawns over fables and eschews facts. In this book, he takes no prisions from Atlantis and Lemuria, New Age pseudoscience, religious doctrinaire that attempts to validate themselves through prophecy, weeping paintings of the Madonna, Jesus' face on tortillas, fortune tellers (that btw target young women), psychics and channels including Ramtha, amulets, exorcisms, psychic surgery, witches, ghosts, flying saucers, astrology, reliance on prayer and miraculous healing, contradictory platitudes, and spiritual justifications for nearly any action.

"Some portion of the decision-making that influences the future of our civilization is plainly in the hands of charlantans," Sagan writes. "When we are self indulgent and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into pseudoscience and superstition."

Carl Sagan's question for a possible extraterrestrial was, "Please provide a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem."

"How is it, I ask myself, that UFO occupants are so bound to fashionable or urgent concerns on this planet? Why not even an incidental warning about CFCs and oxone depletion in the 1950s, or about the AHIV virus in the 1979s, when it might have really done some good?"

Sagan thoroughly elucidates the most common strategies used to defend perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric.

In this book, he includes some history of the founding father's of the U.S. who were "realistic and practical, wrote their own speeches, and were motivated by high principles." He also uses examples of leaders and events in Europe, Russia, and China, and how they thought in ways that were superior to the dreck we have spiraled down to. He admires Jefferson's response to the Sedition Act and Linus Pauling's stance against nuclear weapons and involvement in the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Sagan himself took an anti-nuclear stance.

Carl Sagan wisely implores us to question everything our leaders tell us.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

As far as Sagan's brief mention of drugs used for certain DSM diagnosis, the expert I defer to in that realm is Robert Whitaker and his book "Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill."

I read portions of Sagan's book over again, and skimmed a few parts that seemed a bit repetitive. Overall, a very worthy read that I give a strong five stars. ( )

A well-written reflection on the role of science in lighting our way through the darkness of religiosity, politics, and human folly. ( )

I'm a skeptic by nature, and one who objects to anyone's claiming that I must have a 'spiritual side'. A Myers-Briggs test identifies me as INTJ, meaning that I prefer people (and everything else) to make plain sense. Thus, in my perfect world everyone would simply nod their heads in agreement all the way through this book. That, of course, is a completely unrealistic wish. Sagan's introduction does not do a strong job of setting up his conclusion and consequently creates some vagueness around who his target audience is. A few chapters in, you may think it was only aimed at people who need reassurance that the aliens aren't going to get them. Or more generally, at people like the cab driver from his introduction who have the will to think critically but lack the tools. What are those tools, and how should they be applied?

I will only summarize briefly what I think are his most telling points in the main body: that science demonstrably works, evolves in response to new information, is self-policing for being testable and verifiable, and presents no authority figures. He contrasts this with the warning sings of pseudoscience that evades testing, demands belief, claims authority and suppresses dissent. I thought his most wonderful and least offensive comparison was with used car shopping. You would be a fool to take everything the salesperson tells you at face value. You have to apply some basic logic and skepticism to the situation or you're going to buy a lemon. Nobody likes being scammed. The same principle applies when assessing others' claims about how the world and the universe works. Sagan then concludes with a strong argument that the better these principles are preserved by the general population, the stronger a democracy. He should have also led with that.

It's too easy to like a book when I already share virtually all of its opinions at the start. None of this content challenged me, so I tried to be wary of flaws or drawbacks for other readers. Most of these I found in Sagan's adamant atheist stance, with which he acknowledges he's sometimes prone to taking things too far. Suggesting that prayer subjects religion to scientific analysis, where we could run a study on how often it is successful and rate its efficacy, is an example. I'm no believer, but even I know gods wouldn't oblige themselves to meet our service standards. He cannot summon a better word for established religions that have been with us for centuries than 'respectable', but I feel he demonstrates little respect for them even while arguing that science and belief in a god are compatible. I agree fully when he says it would be cruelty to assault the beliefs of people who depend upon those beliefs to see them through the day. I would not agree that he takes measures here to avoid doing so. His straight-ahead approach is not well designed to win new converts to his side.

That, unfortunately, is what I was half hoping for. Some kind of guide to help me to help others. That's silly, wishful thinking that I shouldn't have expected to find by looking in this direction, so I'm satisfied to say I was disappointed in that regard. Of course I'm still going to say it's a fantastically well-argued book by a fantastic author, aged statistics notwithstanding. Opening chapters on the essence of science's importance and the closing chapters on the ties between science and democracy are especially noteworthy and quotable, they just ought to have been paired up a little better. ( )