Articles Index : >>
VICTOR ZAMMIT Lawyer
Responds Dr Carl Sagan – a Scientist/Astronomer
- about the Afterlife and the Paranormal
1. Opening statement
2. Rebutting Carl Sagan’s arguments:
i) Why don’t channellers give verifiable
ii) Channellers are making up the voices and the contents
of channelling are all trivial and puerile
iii) It’s all wish-fulfillment
iv) The Fox sisters were faking it
3. Some Conclusions
1. OPENING STATEMENT
A number of debunkers and closed minded skeptics mistakenly
call upon Dr Carl Sagan’s skeptical writings to justify
their own closed minded debunking, anti-afterlife, anti-psi
(all paranormal) beliefs.
One of my colleagues even suggested that whilst the debunkers’
group on the East Coast regard Dr Carl Sagan as one of the
giants of science - of astronomy, they also see Dr Carl
Sagan, the way Christian Fundamentalists see Jesus.
Dr Carl Sagan was never a debunker. Nor was he closed minded.
He himself said in chapter 12 of his book The Demon Haunted
World, “If some good evidence for life after death
were announced, I’d be eager to examine it …”.
So he said.
Sagan would call himself an open minded skeptic, a critical
thinker, a paranormal analyst. But after reading his writings
on the paranormal I state that in his perception of the
paranormal, he is fundamentally wrong.
Dr Carl Sagan was a theoretical scientist. He was not a
‘hands on’ practical laboratory scientist. He
was not an empiricist – using scientific method to
measure psi. He was not someone who was regularly empirically
testing the paranormal in the field or in the lab.
He was NOT expressing an empirical, scientific view, but
a personal, subjective, non-empirical view about the paranormal.
This means Sagan’s conclusions inevitably are subjective,
unsupported by hard core empirical evidence. And as it is
universally accepted, anything subjective can be subject
to complete invalidation.
Sagan’s book is not about the afterlife. As a matter
of fact, the afterlife is ancillary, not fundamental to
his argument. Clearly then, he has not shown that he systematically
analyzed the plethora of objective psi evidence. Sagan states
that “If some good evidence for life after death
were announced, I’d be eager to examine it …”
but he has not even canvassed, studied and empirically analyzed
any objective evidence for the validity of the paranormal
and the afterlife – the different areas of objective
evidence presented by some of the most intelligent scientists,
empiricists on this planet earth of the past and of the
present. That is an egregious failure on Dr Sagan’s
Sagan, inevitably, had a restricted perception about the
evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife – (about
psi - as a whole). The fact is that Dr Carl Sagan is not
to be regarded as having objective authority on the paranormal
or the afterlife. His above mentioned book is full of descriptive
observations and reflections as perceived by a skeptic.
From his writings it is clear that Carl Sagan has not, as
some other physicists have done, identified that afterlife
activity is totally compatible with quantum physics’
or the sub atomic physics argument about the afterlife -
higher level of vibrations than anything on physical earth.
If he did not agree with that, he should have given a rebuttal
of the quantum physics explanation of psi. But he didn’t.
He failed to do that. He avoided that. He by-passed the
sub atomic physics argument of physicists such as Sir Oliver
Lodge and quantum physics argument of Dr Fred Alan Wolf
which would have knocked out or at least would have raised
reasonable doubts about Sagan’s negative, anti-afterlife,
Sagan raised a number of issues about mediumship, channeling,
spiritualism generally. But then in his examples he deals
with the mediums themselves, not with psi . In his examples
he imputes that all mediums and all psychics are not genuine,
appear to mislead – and especially in the case of
channellers, come up with trivial information.
But that is ad hominem - he attacked the particular psychic
not rebutting mediumship – not rebutting the actual
psychic evidentiary process of channeling.
Further, Dr Sagan repeatedly tends to inductively interpret
a singular paranormal activity – such as mediumship
and then formulates a general principle – a conclusion
imputing the afterlife does not exist. That is not correct.
That is a fundamental flaw in logic. There is not just one
area of evidence for psi/afterlife. My research shows that
there are at least twenty three different areas of empirical
evidence for the afterlife hitherto unrebutted – see
Because his research was restricted, he inevitably came
to restricted conclusions and failed to discriminate between
the genuine, the legitimate and the specious. His conclusions,
as we shall see below, were based on critical omissions
and deletions, many assumptions and errors and many unfounded,
2. Rebutting Dr Carl Sagan’s
i) Why don’t channellers give
Sagan says: # “How is it, I ask myself, that
channellers never give us verifiable information otherwise
unavailable? Why does Alexander the Great never tell us
about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his last
Theorem, James Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination
conspiracy, Herman Goering about the Reichstag fire? Don’t
Sophocles, Democritus and Aristarchus dictate their lost
books? Don’t they wish future generations to have
access to their masterpieces?”
This is an example of Sagan presenting an argument with
insufficient information about the afterlife. One essentially
has to perceive the afterlife holistically – must
have the full and extensive available knowledge about afterlife
First, as to verifiable information for years we have been
having highly gifted mediums, such as John Edward who was
giving verifiable information ‘live’ every time
he was performing mental mediumship for television. And
those few skeptics who vociferated opposition were not able
to rebut J Edward. At his best, John Edward obtains information
verified by the sitters which is so specific with some of
the sitters, the chance of the information being allegedly
“guessed” is more than one in a million and
at his very best, in one 2 billions – something NO
debunker was ever able to match.
I myself watched some fifty television of John Edward episodes
and I also attended one of those huge meetings of John Edward
– 20,000 in the meeting – and confirm that unless
one claims fraud – the results were absolutely brilliant.
Probabilities were beyond reasonable doubt consistently
favoring John Edward. If some debunker raises the issue
of fraud or cold reading – forget it. Of the thousands
of meetings John Edward had, it would be naïve and
stupid in the extreme to even imagine John Edward doing
deals with different frauds each time to cheat and lie to
the public every time he had an afterlife meeting.
As to Fermat, Booth, Goering et al, Sagan makes a fundamentally
erroneous assumption that the human condition is constant
on physical earth and in the afterlife. He should not assume
that human variables such as thoughts, feelings, sentiments,
motivation, higher drives for status, priorities, accomplishments,
ambition, justice, rewards and punishment in the afterlife
are just like on earth.
Nor can Carl Sagan think that to contact someone from the
afterlife you can just go to any medium– giving the
impression that it is as easy as picking up the telephone
or sending a fax or emailing anyone you like. It is not
like that at all.
That is secular Sagan rationalizing from limited restricted
Those who are fully informed could have told Sagan that
there could be insurmountable problems for an afterlife
entity trying to make contact with us on physical earth.
Highly credible sources transmitted highly credible information
about the conditions of the afterlife.
• It may have been that when you were on earth you
held extremely strong beliefs that the afterlife does not
exist. You believed that we are just like a candlelight
in the darkness of the universe – when the light goes
out, that’s it! Nothing else exists. And when you
died you saw your physical body dead and you found that
you have consciousness with all memories intact, a live
spirit, a duplicate solid body of your dead physical body.
You may have seen people around your dead physical body
– you tried to talk to them but they did not respond
– great confusion sets in. “I cannot be dead”
you say, “… look I still have a solid body!”
We are highly credibly informed from the other side that
there are many people like this stay in this horrible confusion
which sometimes turns into despair – for thousands
of years! Now, if Hermann Goering was one of these people,
certainly he would not be answering any of Carl Sagan’s
• The afterlife is constituted of different realms
at different levels of vibrations – the lowest and
darkest, the most horrible to the highest where the light
is, where vibrations are operating at a faster rate and
conditions are so great, they are beyond description. Now
a person with low vibrations, say Alexander the Great, will
end up in the lowest, darkest realm. If Alexander the Great
crossed over with extremely low vibrations because of systematic
extreme brutality, Alexander is not likely to make contact
with anyone. There will be problems of locating where he
is – and other huge problems for him of darkness and
aggression from other low entities. In such circumstances
Alexander is not likely to be in a position to answer questions
put by Carl Sagan through a medium about Sagan’s intellectual
• If a person like ‘Sophocles’ or ‘Dimocritus’
or ‘Aristarchus’ when on earth suffered too
much pain, depression or any sustained negativity, almost
certainly, that person would not want to return to the environment
where he/she had those negative experiences. Under those
conditions, the earth would be just like a ‘Skinner
Box’ - an environment where severe punishment is anticipated.
• It is also most relevant that afterlife entities
do not all have equal skills in transmitting information
to those still on earth. There are those who are most proficient
and those who have no skills at all in communicating with
us on earth. Just because some people were brilliant or
notorious or aggressive when on earth does not mean they
have any special skills in transmitting information to us
• If these abovementioned known names are in the realm
of the light – there are no incentives for them to
come anywhere near physical earth. Of course, there are
exceptions, but the hugely better conditions for the normal,
decent folk in the realms of the light are immensely superior
to the much darker earth plane. Why would they bother to
pass on information which they may think is totally irrelevant
and immaterial to the real purpose of living on physical
• It would be different if there was a heart to heart
link – if there was love. We are informed from the
other side that love is the most powerful force in the universe
and physical death can never sever heart to heart love connection.
A loved one will make the effort to draw close and will
come into our aura – light vibrations being emitted
from the body. But again, there are rules about contacting
those still on earth. Sometimes the contact has to be sharp
and short for reasons of energy transmission. It just may
be that Alexander the Great, Sophocles and the others did
make contact with their own loved ones on earth and with
the knowledge they have from the other side, they may regard
giving out additional knowledge to strangers as vexatious,
trivial, totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
Dr Carl Sagan was thinking like Carl Sagan - a secular,
intelligent human being on earth, as a materialist layperson
in relation to the paranormal and the afterlife. He was
making assumptions and projecting his own view of physical
conditions on earth onto the afterlife spirit dimension
the laws of whose operation he had not studied, not professionally
investigated and is on record for not conducting one empirical
psi experiment to test psi for validation.
ii) Sagan: channellers are making
up the voices and the messages that come through channellers
are trivial and puerile “banal homilies”.
Sagan says: # CHANNELLING: “Since
most people know how to talk, and many – from children
or professional actors – have a repertoire of voices
at their command the simplest hypothesis is that Ms Knight
makes ‘Ramtha’ speak all by herself, and that
she has no contact with disembodied entities from the Pleistocene
Ice Age. If there’s evidence to the contrary, I’d
love to hear about it.”(p191-2 1st ed.).
There are many empirical ways that psychic investigators
have proved that mediums are not simply “making up
the voices” that come through them.
In order to understand them we need to distinguish the
different kinds of mediumship which Sagan lumps together
under the heading of “channelling”. In mental
mediumship, as it is usually understood, no spirit occupies
the body or the aura of the medium. In trance mediumship,
the spirit actually takes over the voice- box of the medium
and because of this the voice will sound different to the
medium’s own voice. And in direct voice mediumship
the spirit speaks through a voice box constructed of ectoplasm
which is independent of the medium’s voicebox although
still having elements of it.
Here Sagan claims that Ms Knight is not contacting any
spirit. No one is using her voice box to project a voice-sound
different from her natural voice. Implied in this of course,
is that Ms Knight is a making a fraudulent claim. Otherwise
Sagan asks, why could not the entity in Ms Knight give us
information as to how conditions were then – some
35,000 years ago when the spirit was on earth? Carl asks
some 22 questions he would ask if only Ms Knight’s
entity would answer them. But his conclusion about what
comes out of Ms Knight’s is that the alleged spirit
offers lots of ‘banal homilies.’
Why did not Sagan select the classic work of, for example,
Arthur Findlay’s On the Edge of the Etheric for something
substantive about the afterlife transmissions to us humans
on planet earth. Or noted American attorney Edward C Randall’s
classic, The French Revelation – The Extraordinary
Eyewitness Account of the Gifted medium Emily S French –
highly important transmissions? Or Silver Birch’s
classics, including, Light From Silver Birch about the purpose
of life on earth – some nine books - and what we are
to expect in the afterlife. For other profound transmissions
which challenge our values, beliefs, philosophy and structures.
Then for other profound transmissions Sagan should have
read carefully Here and Hereafter by Anthony Borgia series
– how a relatively high ranking Catholic priest on
crossing over insisted on channelling information back to
us because what he preached on earth was wrong. We have
NEVER ever come across rebuttals of these particularly excellent
transmissions from the afterlife. All we get is they can’t
be true because there is no afterlife. That is inevitably
unacceptable. Rebutting means you take every afterlife evidence
and empirically explain why the evidence ought not to be
admissible as valid evidence.
Why has not Sagan rebut these classic works? Why pick on
a comic books for literature and not on a Shakespeare? Why
does Sagan deliberately ignore the established international
classics and deal with trivia? Why did Sagan pick on JZ
Knight whom the paranormalists themselves do not even suggest
as an example of qualitative spirit transmission –
and not deal with brilliant trance mediums such as John
Sloan, Maurice Barbanell and ‘automatic writer’
mediumship of Anthony Borgia ?
A professional psi empiricist would tackle the issue of
mediumship empirically - not as Sagan did, wanting us to
take him seriously on the paranormal by just expressing
a descriptive armchair philosophical personal, non-empirical,
non-scientific, not an objective view about trance mediumship
How would Ms Knight’s trance-mediumship be tested
empirically? At least five ways:
a) I would expect Sagan to do a voice test on the medium
using a voice-machine analysis unit (see Voice Machine Analysis)
before the channelling and after channelling – and
to the graph voices. There are other electronic ways to
measure the vibrations of voices – and do at least
four to six extended trials. No actor would be able to beat
electronic voice box under sustained conditions. Definitive
variance between Ms Knight’s own particular vibrations
and the external entity vibrations would be easily detected
electronically – see below.
b) do an EEG brain scan to test if there would be a repeatable
significant difference in Ms Kinght before and during trance.
Harvard trained Professor Charles H Hapgood has reported
work in this area with gifted medium Elwood Babbitt–
see VOICES OF SPIRIT. He found that whenever a spirit entered
a medium, the EEG and other variables became significantly
different to the medium’s own physical and verbal
c) do a before/after testing on all other biological variables,
e.g. blood pressure. (see b above),
d) whenever possible, do a comparison analysis of expression.
Different styles of language use can be empirically measured
e) investigate and test the content for correlation with
transmissions made through other highly credible trance
mediums such as John Sloan, Maurice Barbanell and Edgar
Cayce who transmitted messages, among other things, dealing
with the urgent problems of to-day’s world –
not just banal platitudes .
More baloney detection applied to Sagan himself:
In his channelling section, Carl Sagan again falls into
the trap listed in his own baloney detection kit as observational
selection when he picks on the lesser convincing and ignores
the spectacular results.
Further baloney detected is Sagan’s argument from
authority. Imputed in his writing is that he tries to give
himself authority as a scientist to speak about definitive
(psychic) matters that are not part of professional repartee.
He has no objective authority.
Begging the question. He says on what is being stated in
channeling: “People pay attention to these puerile
marvels mainly because they promise something like old-time
religion, but especially life after death, even life eternal”.
Here Sagan makes a denigrating statement and tries to give
the answer for it. That is technically an inadmissible statement.
It’s All Wish-fulfillment.
states, “ … how readily we are led, how easy
it is to fool the public when people are lonely and starved
for something to believe in.”
Here is another example of Sagan’s specious reasoning
applied to Sagan himself: submitting an answer to his created
negative predicament. Here Sagan is referring to the time
when Zwinge Hamilton Randi, professionally trained trickster,
organized the greatest hoax in Australia in 1986.
Unlike Sagan who treats the general public as gullible,
I state that that there is a significant percentage of the
public which is astute and not gullible or easily fooled
or easily mislead. But there is a very tiny minority which
tries to fleece the public, those who are NOT psychic, not
gifted mediums, have no psychic skills but claim they are
who are vultures, illegally exploiting some of the gullible
members of the public.
About Sagan citing the Randi affair: many people know Randi
as one of the greatest conmen in history where he conceded
that he cheated, lied, distorted, misled, misguided, used
fraudulent conduct and according to Sagan used heinous trickery
- - in Sydney Australia to fool the innocent public. He
accepted that. There is no record that Sagan misquoted him
about the Sydney incident. There is no record that Randi
ever objected to Sagan’s work. What is on record is
that Randi supported Carl Sagan until his death.
Other objective observers saw the Randi’ hoax in Sydney
in a different way to how Sagan’s interpretation of
the event: Randi’s hoax was uncovered and the event
became his greatest humiliation and embarrassment of his
life. He went home licking his wounds.
The Hoax: the Carlos affair – or how
Randi’s fraud on the public began.
Carl Sagan reports in his book, among other things, that
Randi suggested to the executives of Australian Sixty Minutes
that they generate a hoax from scratch, using someone with
no training in magic or public speaking, and no experience
in the pulpit. Randi picks on his young tenant …Jose
Luis Alvarez …who went through intensive training,
including mock TV appearances and press conferences. He
didn’t have to think up the answers, though, because,
to fool the public, he had a nearly invisible radio receiver
in his ear, through which Randi prompted. Emissaries from
Sixty Minutes checked Alvarez’ performance.
Further, a press kit – full of lies, deliberately
concocted to mislead, misinform and to fool the public,
allegedly drafted by Randi, (fraudulently) stated that this
Alvarez was some kind of a New Age guru – which is
taken over by some ancient soul when he channels.
One show according to Sagan was in Sydney at the Opera House,
on Sunday 21st February 1988. The Hall would have been half
full. Most of those who would have attended would have been
from the skeptics’ group. Only a small number of innocently
curious would want to see for themselves if this guru Alvarez
was genuine. Why? Because Australians, unlike Americans,
are very skeptical.
Perhaps it’s their convict ancestors, perhaps it is
the land itself that makes them that way or perhaps because
Australia is a very young country with no conditioned entrenched
culture, history or tradition. Relative to and compared
with other people in the world, Australians are usually
Those in the New Age who heard this alleged guru immediately
dismissed him as fake, a fraud and a bull-artist. Why? Because
the voice did NOT change, as what happens to genuine trance
mediums. In his delivery when under the fake trance, he
sloppily shouted and at times screamed – but in his
own natural voice. It was very embarrassing. The professional
mediums thought something was terribly wrong promoting his
In another interview with some of Australia’s toughest
journalists, most of whom were convinced they were dealing
with a fake, – this Alvarez could not stand the tough,
aggressive questions put to him. When at one stage, it was
put to him that anyone can reduce his heart beat by putting
a rubber ball under his armpit and squeeze, Alvarez’
response was to run away from the interview in great embarrassment.
His coaching by Zwinge Randi to fool tough journalists miserably
Comment: professionals are puzzled by this episode
• No commercial mainstream television station, especially
Sixty Minutes will participate in fraudulent conduct. It
is against all strict ethics and expressly stated regulations
of television, press and radio media in Australia. When
I contacted Sixty Minutes they said “ … it’s
absolute rubbish that this station will be involved in fraud
against the public.” Yet we have Carl Sagan claiming
that Zwinge Randi and a major mainstream television station
co-operated to fool the public, to knowingly fraudulently
report to the public that a fake guru was genuine.
• Ought not this alone raise reasonable grounds that
Carl Sagan was fooled about this one – not having
basic discerning powers and reasonable discrimination to
identify that which is real to that which is pure anti-paranormal
propaganda dished to him by someone who conceded he is a
professional trickster and a fraud? Many people would expect
more from Carl Sagan. Pity, a theoretical scientist being
fooled because what was related to him was consistent with
his own negative anti-paranormal prejudice. He swallowed
it hook, line and sinker!
• Further, it will be a criminal offence to knowingly
pursue fraudulent conduct. On a civil level Sixty Minutes
would be liable for unspecified damages – for causing
stress, injury, anxiety, severe embarrassment, humiliation
and even nervous shock - with some people.
So much for Carl Sagan telling everyone not to accept anecdotal
evidence - and deluding himself he is being astute, non-prejudicial,
implying he is objective and empirical. It is very sad really.
It just shows how easy it was to fool materialistic easily
led scientist Carl Sagan who deep down wanted to accept
information consistent with his own untested subjective
partiality – notwithstanding his misconstrued adage,
I’ll investigate all evidence.
Conclusion on this item: Sagan was not acting as an informed
scientist - he was not empirical, not objective and certainly
not scientific - not astute, not able to detect baloney.
Fox Sisters Were Faking It.
and the Fox stisters. The third
issue I want to deal with is when this Carl Sagan makes
an untrue statement about that ‘… little girl
who had been a conspirator in a nineteenth century flim-flam
– spirit –rapping, in which ghosts answered
questions by loud thumping – grew up and confessed
it was an imposture.” (p 230)
Carl Sagan is referring to the incident of how modern spirit
contact started in 1848. He deletes and omits anything not
consistent with his skeptical partiality – that is
unfair, unreasonable and unbecoming of someone with a science
background. Using the fine art of baloney detection kit
I find that he:
a) ignores critical information which contradicts his negative
b) misreports the facts,
c) makes too many self-serving assumptions,
The facts, very briefly, of this significant incident which
are accepted are: it was not just ‘one little girl.’
These were the major players, two sisters in Hydesville,
New York in 1848, Margaret and Kate, then aged 14 and 11
years – known as the Fox Sisters. In March that year
began rapping noises in the house into which they just moved.
Everything was done to identify the disturbing noise but
one had any idea where the rappings were coming from.
The contemporaneous reports show that the noises terrified
the children and destabilized the family. Then Kate challenged
the unseen power to rap the number of times she clapped
hands. Every time she clapped, the correct number of raps
followed, and the correct raps were given of the number
of fingers or hands held up. So the unseen force could both
hear and see. Questions were asked to the unseen entity
and the correct answers were given. From then onwards a
system of communicating followed and intelligent answers
were given. The critical message from the unseen entity
was that he was a tenant there and another person by the
name of Bell murdered him. That was in 1848. And although
the police tried to find the body immediately after the
report, the body was not until 1902- 54 years later when
a skeleton in the same residence was found buried deep in
the basement, thus corroborating what Margaret and Kate
Fox told the police.
Evidence not in dispute is that both Margaret and Kate became
very poor, destitute and suffered severe depressive alcoholism-
in fact both drank themselves to death in 1892 and Kate
a year later. Reports state between 1848 until they died
they contined as mediums. This provoked the rationalists
who opposed them bitterly – naturally enough.
In 1888 Margaret, to the surprise of many claiming that
the strange rappings had come about by ‘cracking her
toes.’ One very well known report states that a journalist
offered Margaret $1,500 for an exclusive if she recanted.
One would say that under those irresistably alluring conditions,
Margaret, Kate or anyone else in the world who suffered
from extreme alcoholism and poverty would say anything for
Just two and a half years later, Margaret recanted her confession.
Not only was their alcoholism out of control, they had a
grudge, perhaps legitimately, against her other elder sister
Leah who married into money. It is reported that Leah also
was able to have their children taken away from Margaret
and Kate – and took much of the money they made from
Now for Sagan to state that the ‘little girl’
who was then ‘conspirator’ and that she ‘confessed’
would be most fundamentally misrepresenting what actually
Sagan ignored other most relevant information which would
have raised more than just reasonable doubt to his interpretation
of the Fox sisters’ incident. By leaving out important
contradictory information Sagan in fact is trying to mislead,
misguide and misinform the reader. Sagan tries very hard
to make the reader accept his argument that there was absolutely
nothing significant to follow in this incident. That is
most unfair – certainly not an empirical argument
Moreover, Sagan refers to just ‘one little girl’
in relation to the incident - not even mentioning her name
and her sister’s name - known in American and world
history as the famous Fox Sisters. This was because, I submit
that the reasonable level headed intelligent reader would
go to the Net to get the full story of the Fox Sisters and
how spirit contact became popular in the United States and
gets the full story of what really happened in Hydesville
and what happened to Margaret Fox.
Further, by misreporting the facts, Sagan too was trying
to denigrate and destroy any credibility the Fox Sisters’
I had challenged many skeptics and others to duplicate the
noise just by cracking the joint of their big toes –
I found that no one on earth can do that! Nor did Sagan
question the toe cracking explanation – something
which, for informed people is not a physical possibility-
especially when they wore socks and shoes in New York.
Instead Sagan blindly accepts the explanation because Sagan
was not empirical enough, not objective and scientific enough
to question everything until it can be independently substantiated.
He emotionally wanted to accept the misinformation because
that would be consistent with his own anti-paranormal negative
Dr Carl Sagan, the astronomer, scientist, fails in his ‘critical
thinking’, in rebutting the paranormal/afterlife in
many important respects – as shown above. He did not
show he had the means to construct a reasoned argument against
the validity of the empirical evidence for the paranormal.
He built the ‘straw-man’ argument – concocting
something fragile himself so that he could rebut it- to
delude himself, to delude the skeptics, to delude the debunkers.
He ignored the qualitative and included the vexatious. He
illegitimately tried to use his status as a scientist to
rebut the empirical evidence of the paranormal he does not
understand, he did not research or he had ignored. He preached
about critical thinking and violated every rule in the book.
Balanced against Sagan’s denigration of the public
describing them as being over-gullible, I submit that a
greater proportion of the people are searching for some
meaning in life because of what they themselves experienced
traditional beliefs and science cannot explain. They have
legitimately argued that their history and tradition, the
values and beliefs have failed them.
That is not being gullible, that is not being dogmatically
indiscriminately superstitious - that is not being easily
led. That is being intelligent.
That is an attempt to reconcile their role in the universe
with the given life on earth in a particular environment.
To impute that only Carl Sagan has the answers about what
to accept or not to accept – or to state only scientists
or the skeptics or the debunkers know what is going on-
is to make a most erroneous statement fundamentally inconsistent
with what we know about materialistic scientists, what we
know about closed minded skeptics and debunkers. Many see
these as losers, defeatists and over-sycophantic to those
who hand out funding.
Accordingly, whereas Dr Carl Sagan might have been a good
astronomer, he fails miserably in empirically showing why
the objective, empirical evidence for paranormal and the
afterlife not be accepted.
A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTRLIFE www.victorzammit.com