The Dragon in My Garage - Carl Sagan

[Modem Butterfly]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

[beam me up scottie]

1. Why do you hate

dragons?

[GOPBasher]

21. LOL

[bertha katzenengel]

2. this is a logical fallacy

You see, everyone knows that dragons are fictional, imaginary, myths. But God is real.

/devil's advocate

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I contend that is backwards.

God is a fictional, imaginary myth. Dragons are real.

[Discord]

4. Actually

Theres a similarity to the description of Teradactyl's to that of mythological dragons, and with the new studies that lead scientists to believe that dinosaurs were more closely related to birds than reptiles. Never know, but maybe centuries ago someone came across a skeleton of a flying creature, that had somewhat reptilian features. That early discovery could have brought about the legend of dragons. So there is some physical evidence of how the legend of dragons may have come about. Once apon a time, people thought the sun was a god as well, now we know the sun is just a big nuclear reactor in the sky, and while we know the sun is indeed not a god, there was also a physical evidence there, the sun did indeed exist.

[onager]

5. That's interesting

Pterodacyls, eh? Hmmm.

The different cultural attitudes toward dragons are strange, too. In Europe they were seen as evil. As in St. George and the dragon.

But in Asia, dragons were associated with good luck, success, wealth, etc.

[Discord]

6. I had a funny feeling I spelled that wrong. lol

Yes, indeed different cultures viewed dragons differently. The one similarity, was that dragons were supremely powerful. They held a reverance that was respected, for good or for evil, but in their place as grand figures in mythology. Only wimpy dragon I can recall was "Puff" the magic dragon, but even he had some classical abilities.

[onager]

19. No, I spelled it wrong too!

I inadvertently left out a letter. Duh...

It is spelled

pterodactyls...

[Lerkfish]

7. A panda does not live in my garage, therefore they don't exist.

Atheist: A Panda does not live in my garage, therefore they do not exist.

Me: The first part of your statement does not prove the second part of your statement.

Atheist: You're insane to think there are Pandas because there are obviously none in my garage! see!

Me: If I point out that absence of proof is not proof of absense, that makes me insane?

Atheist: yes, you believe in the fairy tale of pandas. Since I have never seen a panda, they cannot exist.

Me: I understand that for YOU, the question of the existence of pandas has been answered. For ME, I find your area of search narrow. In order to prove they don't exist would require covering a great deal of area, meaning the rest of the world. Since I cannot cover all that ground myself, I'm more at ease agreeing that a panda does not exist in YOUR garage, but I reserve the right to operate on the premise that pandas MAY exist somewhere else that you have not searched yet.

Atheist: You're being close-minded and superstitious.

Me: I fail to see how refusing to consider a question closed when all areas have not been searched can be refered to as "close-minded" when your decision call off the search at the end of your garage is considered "open-minded" or scientific.

Atheist: I don't have to prove there aren't any pandas elsewhere: the burden of proof is on YOU to prove they exist.

Me: But you see, I'm keeping my mind open that they may exist. You are saying they definitely don't exist. Since your assertion is more definitive and final than mine, it begs the burden of proof.
------------

gee, we can all do this sort of thing, can't we? We can show how ridiculous another person's point of view is by pretending to speak for them in a dialogue that we control. We can frame their arguments in a such a way as to provide answers we wish to provide in response to the straw man's arguments.

All day long I could pretend to know what others think and how they'd argue in an attempt to criticize them via analogy..similar to a controlled town hall meeting. Where I only get and have to answer questions I am familiar with or wish to receive.

bravo! Modem Butterfly! bravo!

[Modem Butterfly]

8. So you make your point by setting up a straw man...

...unless, of course, you believe there are a number of individuals out there who have invisible, undetectable dragons in their garages.

Carl Sagan's fable is about healthy skepticism and the need to be open-minded to evidence. I guess you missed this part when you read the essay :eyes: :

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

[Lerkfish]

9. sure. setting up my own straw man WAS the point.

sorry you didn't get it.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. So your point had nothing to do with my post- got it.

But thanks for the bravo. That really threw me off, and made me think you had some sort of point about what I had posted.

[Lerkfish]

11. LOL...if you cannot see how my post was a point about your post...

then I see no point in continuing further.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. Sorry, I don't

No one, other than you, came up with a straw man. No one, other than you, attempted to frame another's argument. And no one, other than you, made an attempt to criticize via analogy. How this relates to my post, I don't know. To be perfctly frank, I suspect that it doesn't. I suspect that you simply went off half-cocked and made some assumptions about the essay without reading it totally, or maybe even reading it at all.

[Lerkfish]

14. hm....

I DID read the essay.
My response was to the purpose of the essay: to portray nonatheists as irrational and atheists as rational. I did not mean to imply you wrote the essay at all, but to recognize you posted it.

the straw man is the essay's intent via analogy to come up with an outrageous example, and then by that, come up with arguments that appear to portray via analogy anyone who believes in something that cannot be scientifically measured as less than sane.

It's not that bad, he's coming from his perspective, making HIS point.
I just reversed his analogy to show that the FRAMING of the analogy, like all good propaganda, directs the reader to a conclusion the essayist wants you to get to.
The problem is, the analogy is dependent on portraying the arguments of people not present, and characterizing them as irrational. Easy to do.

for the record, I admire Sagan a great deal, and I don't think this essay is as bad as some.
But if you accept the premise of the essay in one direction you should also realize it can work in the other direction, AS LONG AS you portray a dialogue you control with an opposing viewpoint and use that device to characterize the other viewpoint as irrational.

Just as atheists got angry at the use of the word "belief", nonatheists don't much care for ANY analogy that frames belief in terms of fairy tales and then uses the preposterous premise of fairly tales to then disprove belief. As long as atheists do the framing, that's always going to occur. My post was simply returning back the same sort of framing in the other direction.

If you cannot understand my point, since it mirrors Sagan's own, then I don't see what we have to discuss. As long as some atheists persist in characterizing belief as irrational fairy tale, then you limit rational interchange of ideas and simply are name-calling in a passive aggressive sort of way, pretending to be highbrow but still essentially calling nonatheists believers in fairy tales. If a nonatheist objects, OR GOD FORBID, return your own devices back upon you, then you get to accuse them of having thin skins.

Its an old worn conceit of rhetoric, is all. It doesn't speak as highly of atheists as you seem to think.

[Modem Butterfly]

15. You clearly didn't read the essay

Nor did you read the excerpt that I posted. I'm not sure what you actually read, but it seems to have little or nothing to do with Sagan's essay.

As for the rest of your post, unfortunately, garbage in, garbage out. You started with an assumption, based on I'm not sure what, and worked backwards. It's unfortunate, too, since the point of Sagan's essay was almost the same post you made in your strawman post, minus the emotionally charged language and religious tunnel vision. The beauty of Sagan's essay is that it is applicable to any situation which calls for blind faith in the fantastic, not just religion, but superstition, rumor, conventional "wisdom" and even advertising claims. Use logic and reason to weigh available evidence, but keep an open mind to evidence that may yet be presented. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Finally, I'm disturbed by the amount of projection in your last post. You ascribe a number of motives to not only Sagan, but to atheists in general and to me in specific that, based on this essay at least, are baseless. I'm not sure why you did that. But it is interesting.

[Lerkfish]

17. :) I'll let you get the last word.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. I don't think your analogy works.

The essence of the dragon-in-garage exchange is "theists claim that a god exists, even though there is no evidence for one, and appear to have specifically defined "God" in such a way as to make it impossible to disprove".

I think this is true.

I found it much harder to boil the panda-in-the-garage exchange to its logical core - this paragraph took me several attempts. I think the best summary I've been able to come up with is "atheists claim that the fact that they have never seen evidence for a god proves that no such evidence exists" or possibly "atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existance of a god, but they have not looked in the places where such evidence would be if it did exist".

I do not think this is true, however you formulate it.

I agree that the dragon-in-the-garage argument isn't a *proof* of anything, but is it a good *portrayal* of a trait of many theists that annoys many atheists. The panda-in-the-garage argument isn't even that.

[Lerkfish]

31. thanks.

upon reflection, I agree with your observation.

However, I was on the spur of the moment attempting to mirror the dragon dialog, so it hamstrung my ability to make my point. In other words, the WAY of making the argument was my point rather than the content of the argument.

I was TRYING to make the point that as long as you use things like the dragon dialog to portray ideological opponents as making arguments you already have answers for, or that are so bizarre that they are obviously offtrack, you are unfairly hanging people for words they never said, but rather arguments you put in their mouths to make your own points.

Better to simply make your own arguments without fabricating bizarre arguments for your opponent that are simple to knock down because you set them up.

But, your point is valid as well, that the dialog may not have been meant to prove anything but rather to protray a perception of the arguments made in the past.

I just don't understand why atheists feel they have to frame theist's arguments to the point of absurdity to refute them. Simply refute them and be done with it. I for one, see no reason to frame atheism as anything other than what it is: an alternate opinion from mine on the nature of the universe and existence. I simply disagree with it. I see no need to characterize atheists as charlatans, simpletons, insane, or childlike. Why do atheists feel that need? Why is it necessary?

[trotsky]

32. Hmmm..

"frame theist's arguments to the point of absurdity"

Some might say they're already there. I mean, to me, the dragon in the garage is very much like arguments for god. I don't see a whole lot of difference.

[Lerkfish]

35. if so, then why is it necessary to fabricate dragons?

simply use the ACTUAL arguments and go from there.

If you feel both are equal, why use a false argument (fairy tales, dragons)? The problem with substituting a false argument and inserting into the mouth of another, is that it accomplishes two very bad things:

1. it needlessly sidetracks the debate into details of the substitute argument, which may not match closely enough with the real argument so its a waste of time.

2. It implies a need to assault the arguer instead of the point. WHY one chose to make an argument substitution, (for example: "fairy tale" implies a derogatory assessment of the other individual as a child) introduces negative baggage completely unnecessary to the point at hand

[trotsky]

36. It's called an analogy.

Sometimes arguing about such an abstract concept such as "god" is a little complex.

An analogy like the dragon in the garage takes one aspect of the concept - in this case, the inability of the believer to prove god's existence - and illustrates it in a way that is easily understood.

[Lerkfish]

37. do you not understand my point, or are you intentionally ignoring it?

I understand what an analogy is.
You seem to be intentionally bypassing the point that the analogy appears to be intentionally dismissive or deroragatory by the WAY it is framed.
It contains emotionally charged wording INTENDED to frame the other person as insane, childish, or imbecilic.
It goes BEYOND a simple analogy. It is INTENDING to do two things: to portray a perception of the argument of another and also to push it into the realm of the ridiculous in order to comment on the veracity of the other's intellect.

and, its completely unnecessary to make the person's point.

[trotsky]

38. You to free to read into it what you want.

And you clearly choose to read the worst you can.

You said that it intends:

to portray a perception of the argument of another and also to push it into the realm of the ridiculous in order to comment on the veracity of the other's intellect.

I would say its intention is as above, only when you replace the words "a perception of" with "a variation of" and remove "in order to comment on the veracity of the other's intellect."

It's an argumentation tactic much like reductio ad absurdum, all it's doing is addressing the illogical nature of a claim. It says nothing about the intellect of one holding the claim - YOU are choosing to read an insult into it.

[Lerkfish]

40. ah. so when you compare my beliefs to a fairy tale, its MY fault

if I'm offended. got it.

:mad:

[trotsky]

42. Who said the words "fairy tale"?

Not me. Not Modem Butterfly.

[Lerkfish]

43. sure, whatever. I'll let you have the last word.

[trotsky]

44. While posting that you'll let me, of course.

LOL

[Modem Butterfly]

48. Not Carl Sagan, either

[aneerkoinos]

45. Well

If I get offended and loose my cool, I justifyibly can't blame anybody else for that feeling inside me. My feelings are allways MY responsibility, not anyone else's.

To paraphraze Buddha, if I got a pain in the but, should I first try to get rid of the pain, or go into blame-gaming and scape-goating?

And no, I don't think it's cool or accurate to compare anyone's beliefs to fairy tales either. IMO rhetorical means to belittle and ridicule opposing views are just that, rhetorical means, not arguments.

[Lerkfish]

46. valid points.

thanks.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I think that

the reason why atheists on DU tend to be more combatitive than theists on DU is because we're used to arguing with theists (specifically Christians) of all flavours, not just the (mostly) eminently reasonably ones found on DU.

I suspect than most of the posts attacking Christianity on DU have in mind something far more like Pat Robertson's religion than like yours. However, I suspect that he's probably more representative of people who call themselves Christians (at least in America) than you are, so I think it's probably not entirely unreasonable for them to do so, although I think it's lazy not to qualify ones remarks fully.

In my particular case, I recognise that my dislike of Christianity is more than rational, and as a result do my best not to let it come through in my posts. I come from the UK, where all schools have to have a compulsory "daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature". Being made to sing Christian hymns about how happy I was to be a Christian and how lucky I was that I wasn't an atheist, every day for thirteen years, have left me with... Issues... with religion in general, and Christianity in particular. I still twitch whenever I hear "Jerusalem" or "Guide me oh thou Great Jehovah".

I agree that it is, in general, obviously more use to refute someone's argument than to caricature it. The problem is that there are no impartial judges awarding scores to show whether an argument has been succesfully refuted or not, and so all these debates go round in circles endlessly and all sides get heartily sick of them, and so there is definately room for portrayals of the state of the debate, as well as for additions to it.

[Az]

34. Lets put it this way

Where atheists congregate there are typically assaults by rabid thesits decrying our heathen evil nature. Where we find active debates between theists and atheists it is usually between the more aggressive varieties of both.

Here in DU the focus is not religion but the fact that religion plays a part in our society draws the topic into political discussions by necessity. Thus the atheists often expect a certain form of interaction and prepare for it. Coming down hard on individuals that have never been involved in a theism/atheism debate before.

Thus many of the theists that have never been confronational about their beliefs before are run over by atheists who are either used to being attacked or outnumbered by those trying to put them down.

[aneerkoinos]

47. Impartial judges

Yet, very strangely, it is the imaginative (not necessarlily real) imaginative judges that keep science real, to an extent.

But, in reality, philosophy is not relativistic in the sense that all arguments are equal, in fact Plato is better than most or all so called "modern" philosophers. Descartes and Kant did OK, but logically Nagarjuna's unconditional skepticism beats their positivism and other mistakes 7-0.

And this, my friend, is just a fact.

[enki23]

13. no... therefore the panda in your garage does not exist

the garage is an unnecessary part of the story, in any case. it does just fine without it.

but then, i'm sure you're bright enough to have figured that out already for yourself.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Of course, as Sagan points out, we should be open to further evidence

Maybe Lerkfish doesn't have a panda in his garage, but he might yet be able to prove that the little black and white bamboo eaters could thrive in American garages.

[onager]

20. Well, no...

First he would have to show me how a panda...a real critter which I can see for myself in almost any zoo...bears any relationship to an invisible dragon.

So what do we call this? The Argument From A Desperately Inept Attempt To Change The Subject?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Actually,

If one of the defined properties of pandas was omnipresence, then the fact that there wasn't one in my garage would prove their non-existence.

Just a thought...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. but I wouldn't say that

having seen the "dragon" myself, I'd say nothing at all......

[GOPBasher]

22. I love Sagan, but I don't agree with his conclusion here.

There is a difference, first of all, between religion and science. I have a B.S. in physics and I've studied philosophy, too. I understand rational thought. But an experience with God is different. Many people (myself included) have had personal experiences with God. And there's nothing wrong with saying that, because of these experiences, we believe in God. That's what I say, that I believe in God, but I don't know for a fact that there is; I can't prove such a thing.

Rational people can certainly believe in God. Now, this argument that he makes should be more applied to the street-corner evangelizers. They act like their faith is a provable fact, not just a belief. And that is ignorant.

[Az]

23. The trouble here

Can you convince even yourself that your (assuming you have had such an experience) that there is no chance that it was an anamoly created by your own brain? There is a great deal of evidence that the mind is quite capable of creating just such an internal experience without any extrodinary impetus required. Meditation, exertion, and a host of other phenomena can create just such an experience.

So the fact that there is a potential explanation for such experience merely places the dragon back in the garage and sets the issue back to square one again. Is there really a dragon there or not?

[GOPBasher]

24. Well you're assuming, I think, that I meant I've had some

type of "encounters" with God. What I meant is that when I pray, I'm answered. It's always been that way. That's why I believe in God.

I don't think I know everything, and I could be wrong about everything I do think, and I'd never stand on a street corner and tell you that you're going to hell if you don't believe as I do. I don't believe that, and I don't believe that my belief in any way makes me better than your's.

[Az]

25. That is within the parameters of what I meant

You may believe quite strongly that your prayers were answered by God. But I contend that there are potential mundane explanations that do not necessitate divine attention. To use another phrase Prof Sagan was quite fond of, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.

As to what you believe being more valuable than what I believe ... at a surface examination there is no difference. But if we believe contradicting things then there is the value of which of us if either of us believes the thing closest to the truth. This is of course assuming truth has more merrit than personal utility or emotional value.

The only point I was trying to raise is that Sagan's argument still fits the parameters. Your belief that you have a dragon in your garage is not going to be turned by my claims that there can be no such thing as a dragon despite all my rational explanations.

If you thought the Dragon story was interesting ask an atheist some time about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. She is a bit more famous amongst some of our croud on the net and has a more fully developed history. We know she is invisible because no one has ever scene her and we know she is pink bacause we have faith. ;)

[GOPBasher]

26. Well when I look at the chances of things happening the

way they do, I think it's a more likely explanation that there's a God who did it than all these things being merely coincidences. The likelyhood of the latter takes, IMO, more faith.

By the way, I've been a lot of things in my life: devout Catholic, nominal Catholic, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist/Taoist, deist with Buddhist philosophy, and now Christian. So I can relate to almost anything. I believe different things when I get new reasons and new facts. I don't hold steadfast to one belief.

Anyway, that pink unicorn thing is funny.

[Az]

27. A fair and understandable position

As I said I quite understand that your current belief is what it is. Not much I can say without further discussion that I can imagine would dissaude you from your belief. Not really the effect I was going for. Just defending Saint Carl's little dragon story is all.

[immoderate]

28. When I look at the winning lottery number...

and I realize how unlikely it is that number should have come up by chance alone, then I know...

--IMM

[Igel]

39. I view theism as unfalsifiable.

But that's ok, I view atheism as unfalsifiable, too.

All the proofs against theism that I've seen rely on internal inconsistencies in a particular person's interpretations (or an interpretation of a specific group); that's a fool's game, unless the interpretation is ironclad, in print, and infallibly claims to make some statement about some observable and unequivocal facet of reality. Some have crucially relied not on facts, but the interpretation of facts or conclusions derived from facts (frequently archeological, sometimes not).

All the proofs that I've seen in favor of theism wind up with the conclusion: If not God, then how did/does X happen/obtain? This is also a fool's game, because it presupposes that we can observe or readily deduce from our current set of facts all the answers.

But then, I tend to like Kierkegaard.

[aneerkoinos]

41. Shees...

Of course God both exists and does not exist!

Didn't your Mama teach you to leave that bivalent logic in the toy-box?

Shees!