calcteacher t1_j24yf4c wrote
We was a good communicator. Decent scientist, but no high level research. I liked him.
Belostoma t1_j253x71 wrote
>Decent scientist, but no high level research.
Wrong. You could arguably say that of Tyson, but certainly not Sagan. He had numerous highly cited, lead-authored publications in top journals, for example (not an exhausive list):
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.177.4043.52
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.276.5316.1217
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.206.4425.1363
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519373902166
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.173.3995.417
Even if he weren't remotely famous and hadn't written any popular books, he would easily be among the top 1 % of scientists in his field (planetary science) by traditional academic metrics. On top of that publication record, he was the director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell and one of the principal scientists on most of the major NASA planetary science missions of his day. You don't even need to add his incredibly important public-facing work to rank him among the most influential planetary scientists ever.
It sounds like you're trying to impress someone here by acting unimpressed with someone everyone else rightly idolizes. It's not working.
calcteacher t1_j25ek6p wrote
I am not wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. But I know you think you do. I'm a research scientist and I lived through his life. I understand you hate about somebody else who might know a little something so. Strange that you think I'm trying to impress somebody. I have no need for that. I'm just giving you my opinion. It's just one person's point of view.
Belostoma t1_j25n46c wrote
>I am not wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. But I know you think you do. I'm a research scientist and I lived through his life.
No, you're really very wrong here. Anyone who wants to follow this exchange beyond a "he-said she-said" can browse deeply through Sagan's record on Google Scholar, read about his roles in NASA's planetary science missions, and see for themselves.
However, as it happens, I'm also a research scientist, probably with more experience than you. I'm guessing you're still just a grad student or postdoc with an excessive ego. I'm sure I have more claim to have "lived through his life" than you. Sagan inspired me to go to Cornell and major in astronomy, where I worked as an undergrad in his old office (albeit only when meeting with my supervisor, whose office it was). I later did undergraduate research in radio astronomy for Yervant Terzian, the incredibly kind and brilliant man who hired Sagan at Cornell and held the same professorship Sagan did (David C Duncan Professor of Physical Sciences) at the time I worked for him.
I ended up switching to a different field that better fits the kind of day-to-day work I like to do (quantitative ecology), but I am highly familiar with Sagan's legacy and personally close to it. I know you're wrong, and I'm qualified to know.
tzaeru t1_j250a28 wrote
If high level research is only the stuff that has led to new inventions or new major discoveries about the universe, then it's only a very tiny fraction of all scientists.
Most scientists don't have as many papers and as often cited discoveries as Sagan does.
Belostoma t1_j2555yb wrote
Sagan did tons of research at the highest level in his field, too.
calcteacher t1_j25gwm7 wrote
High level research was only one aspect of my response. His strength was in communication to the general public and for that he was unsurpassed. You can't be great at everything. He will be remembered as a great communicator because that he did that most excellently of all the things he accomplished in my opinion.
calcteacher t1_j25h9p1 wrote
May I ask you if you've published anything yourself? Do you know what it takes? Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular? May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?
Belostoma t1_j25nki0 wrote
>Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular? May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?
Why are you asking these stupid questions of /u/tzaeru, when I already showed you that Sagan had many top-notch, original research publications that were both first-authored and published before he was famous? He wasn't just getting added onto somebody else's work. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this bullshit.
tzaeru t1_j25omai wrote
> May I ask you if you've published anything yourself?
Sure! I haven't.
> Do you know what it takes?
I have an idea yes.
> Do you know how easy it is to be added on to someone else's research when you're popular?
Sure, but Carl Sagan has been listed as an author in a decent pile of papers even before he was very famous.
There's also original research he's headed. Most notably to the atmospheric compositions and surface temperatures on other planets and moons.
> May I ask what you know about scientific publication and how it works?
I know the basics of the process! I'm not a researcher, but I've studied in universities and have many researcher friends and colleagues.
Universities, since I stopped computer science studies early on when I got employed, but have been studying up on some statistics and social sciences in another city later on.
calcteacher t1_j2b3ce9 wrote
I know the basics of the process! I'm not a researcher, but I've studied in universities and have many researcher friends and colleagues.
haha ha
you know nothing of the process? I have friends?
please
until your name goes on the author line, you know nothing. IMHO
tzaeru t1_j2b3wbh wrote
Ok. I don't think you're discussing in good faith here.
calcteacher t1_j2b3jjx wrote
>Sure, but Carl Sagan has been listed as an author in a decent pile of papers even before he was very famous.
sure?
you know nothing my friend, until your name appears in the author line. Amirite?
[deleted] t1_j2b3xxn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2b3syh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2dlc2i wrote
[deleted]
tzaeru t1_j2dsa51 wrote
You should rely on facts, rather than petty insults.
Here this very matter is discussed: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/7/2077
>Sagan's biographers have argued that the Academy's rejection of Sagan, and Harvard's prior denial of his tenure, were the direct consequence of the phenomenon that has become known as the “Sagan Effect”: the perception that popular, visible scientists are worse academics than those scientists who do not engage in public discourse. Yet, later analyses of Sagan's output have indicated that his academic contributions compared favorably to those of other Academy members
You may want to read about the "Carl Sagan effect".
[deleted] t1_j24zao9 wrote
[deleted]
AlaskaExplorationGeo t1_j25cn4v wrote
He is actually still fairly frequently cited. He wasn't like, Darwin or Einstein but still a good scientist, in addition to being basically the best science communicator ever.
calcteacher t1_j25gk4t wrote
I told you I liked them. He was a little overblown for his science because he was popular. Popularity matters when it comes to publishing Despite what you may think. As far as Darwin goes, it's interesting to see what Sapolsky thinks of Darwin.
AlaskaExplorationGeo t1_j25kki7 wrote
In Sagan's case, and as a scientist myself, the popularity was deserved, imo. What does Sapolsky think of Darwin?
calcteacher t1_j25t7q8 wrote
Sapolsky takes each bioscience idea, presents it (such as Darwin's survival of the fittest) and then explains why its wrong. He has a very nice 24 part lecture series he did while teaching at Stanford. It was fun, I think you may like it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments