out of that throwaway comment, but do you have some info that indicates his science was other than solid? Where else is he being 'used as some sort of touchstone for good science'?
I used Sagan because he is one of the most popular, commonly known names associated with science related shows. I suppose I could have used Alan Alda, who is certainly no scientist, but is closely associated with the Scientific American tv series, but I simply chose the first name that came to mind. I'm sure someone else might be more commonly known, and have something to do with tv or movies and science, and be a better scientist, but they didn't immediately spring to mind, which would be the definition of the name I was seeking, wouldn't it? In retrospect, I suppose Stephen Hawking might have been a better choice, but using Sagan surely got my point across, yes?
Why is this such an issue for you? May I at least assume that since you didn't touch on the rest of my comment, which surely was more controversial than this, that you agree with my other opinions? |
