The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
“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.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. 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.”
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons — to say nothing about invisible ones — you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages — but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence” — no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it — is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
r/e
Jun 27, 2007 @ 11:26:00
If I said there was a Befesmun in my garage. Would you tentatively reject it? Probably not. You would ask me to define it. If I defined it as something lacking of any attributes that can be scientifically tested, would you then tentatively reject it? Probably not. You would have no basis from which to accept or reject that it existed as defined (all things being equal). “An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, I believe, is the applicable phrase in this situation.
I think, however, that within this case you are attaching common beliefs about what a dragon is to what the hypothetical person is defining as a “dragon”.
ian
Jun 27, 2007 @ 12:02:45
Actually, I would reject it.
If it cannot be scientifically proven, then there is no basis for its existence to begin with. Science is an extension of logic and reason; dismiss logic and you have no means for understanding.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence†-Christopher Hitchens
r/e
Jun 27, 2007 @ 12:26:48
Ah, I apologize then for incorrectly asserting what you would have done. I think, however, that the underlying rationale is still relevant.. whether you would or would not reject the hypothesis does not make your decision “the only sensible approach” neither is tentative rejection, in general, “the only sensible approach”. Even assuming that tentative rejection of a hypothesis, with neither evidence for or against it, is sensible, so would an approach of neither accepting or rejecting.
Yet, I am taking the stronger approach and not even accepting that “tentative rejection” is a sensible approach in the hypothetical. To “accept something as true” without evidence is as insensible as to “reject the truth of something” without evidence.
I reject a heliocentric model because there is evidence to the contrary. I reject a belief that dogs and fish can naturally conceive with one another, because there is evidence to the contrary.
I neither accept nor reject the hypothesis of a multiverse because there is neither evidence for or against, merely a proposition that fits the facts.
A hypothesis of an invisible, heatless fire breathing, incorporeal, floating, dragon is merely a proposition that fits the facts, due no more no less weight then a proposition of a multiverse… a multiverse is merely a more complicated proposition.
dantes_torment
Jul 05, 2007 @ 19:32:32
You reject *heliocentric* model? Do you mean of the universe or solar system?
r/e
Jul 06, 2007 @ 02:59:34
Heh, apologies again. What I mean to say was, “I reject the pre-copernican model.” :P Point still stands. :)
God
Jul 10, 2007 @ 03:35:50
The difference here?
A dragon in your garage holds no significant purpose. A dragon is in your garage. So what? One guy made the claim and cannot prove it nor can we disprove it.
The universe and all it’s contents came from somewhere. It was created BY something. Whether you think it was a random explosion billions of years ago or an intelligent source. THAT is the debate for God. Not just that he is in someone’s garage.
God (or better what YOU think God is) cannot be “scientifically” proven, nor is he meant to be. The argument can go on ad-infinitum. “God created the explosion that created the universe” and so on. It’s not meant to be answered by science.
This debate is not the same.
Satan
Nov 27, 2009 @ 22:36:15
I’m still more popular with the kids, God!
ian
Jul 10, 2007 @ 17:40:29
ok, so god created the universe.. so.. who created god?
your reply: god has always existed.
my reply: the universe, then, has always existed.
the more important question is not what created the universe, but what created time.
r/e
Jul 10, 2007 @ 18:28:26
Isn’t time merely measure between two points of possible change? I think Universe is a word describing a thing– Time is a word describing a relational concept.
Did someone create a “centimeter”? Or did someone just create the word “centimeter” which is merely a description of relational concept?
Apart from a person, a “centimeter” would not exist.. although, perhaps, the concrete relationship between point A and B might still exist.
So.. “what created time” would be, seemingly, illogical, because in order for something to create “time” it would already have to be within a temporal state (if “time” is truly a word describing a relationship between two points of possible change.)
So.. this provides one of two options, I would contend. Either God is or can be “atemporal”– whatever that means.. merely giving a negative definition with logical application– and therefore created time from without. Or, time, has always been. “Time” has always been is, usually, the necessary stance materialistic scientist take.. because, to take any other approach would be to consider an unscientific concept– the same as if science all of a sudden wanted to consider the world with regard to “immaterial” things.
How strange would that be?
To say that God has always existed is fine– because, it is easily asserted that “God” is atemporal.. or something.
If the Universe has always existed, then time has also always existed. But, most scientist, I believe, would disagree with you on the first point.. instead taking the position that the “universe”, at least as we know the state to be today, is something like 14 billion years old.
What then before? Time without universe? Or universe in some other state? All interesting questions.. but, in my opinion, can’t be addressed with anything but ad hoc science.. “X is the laws of physics we have now, but!! if Y was the laws of physics before X was the laws of physics, then B definitely could have been the state of the universe before our universe now!”
Yay and we’re all happy. I’m not sure, however, what would make this sort of ad hoc “scientific” argumentation any different than the ad hoc “theological” argumentation.
I’m just being argumentative now. Good stuff. Have a good day. I’m sure I’ve made a lot of bad points in my post but feel free to address.. always good to learn.
ian
Jul 11, 2007 @ 08:42:17
“If the Universe has always existed, then time has also always existed.”
What makes you think that? There’s no reason to believe that time and matter have any direct relation. Time is able to exist without matter. Matter (in the atom/electron sense) cannot exist without time since it’s cohesion is dependent on the elections spinning around the atoms, which requires time.
r/e
Jul 11, 2007 @ 14:13:42
“What makes you think that? There’s no reason to believe that time and matter have any direct relation. Time is able to exist without matter. Matter (in the atom/electron sense) cannot exist without time since it’s cohesion is dependent on the elections spinning around the atoms, which requires time.”
I think you misunderstand my conditional statement.
I said “IF” the universe has always existed.. I did not say that it has.
But, IF it has always existed then time must ALWAYS have existed also.. this I think you would agree with based upon your statement. Unless you can imagine how the universe could have existed without time.. I cannot see how you can take that position from a purely scientific standpoing.
So, by all means, it is possible that Time has existed forever.. or it has not. If it has not, then it came about “atemporally” by definition. If it has and the universe did not coexist eternally with it.. then the universe came about “temporally” due to X. Now, IF we describe the universe “everything of matter”, then to say that it hasn’t existed forever would be to say that matter has not existed forever… at which point it begs the question, how it matter come about?
Did something “immaterial” create matter? or did matter merely “randomly” appear in time? If it “randomly” appeared.. it still did so through “immaterial” means… by definition.
In either case, science will not dare consider the “immaterial” or the “attemporal”.. it can ONLY use “material” concepts and “temporal” concepts.
Therefore, I believe, a necessary believe of science is that time has ALWAYS been and the universe along with it (the universe, in some form or another).
And thats fine.. like I said.. but seeing as that scientist now take the position that the universe as we now see it has only been around for X amount of years.. I don’t understand how people presume to distinguish between the ad hoc arguments of “pre-this-universe” whether based upon “scientific abstraction” or “theological abstraction”.
Greybeard
Aug 05, 2007 @ 20:48:13
Time:
This is an incomplete choice – there are certainly other present explanations and there will be more that will lead to an understanding.
We restrict ourselves to 4 dimensions and therefore think in length, breadth, depth and space-time. Were we, say, 2 dimensional creatures, at least one of the above dimensions would be meaningless. Hence, our intuitive concept of time is brought about by our own circumstances and may not be accurate.
We are, as yet, unsure of the nature of time. Is it constant throughout the universe? What of Relativity? Does time operate the same at the quantum level? We will eventually know. As we do not know the answer now, it is difficult for us to argue the point – all would be speculation and supposition. If one factor of such an argument is wrong, all that flows is wrong.
The Dragon:
As far as the dragon in the garage is concerned, this was addressed (granted not as entertainingly) by the philosopher, A.J Ayers, who postulated an invisible hippopotamus in his garden and challenged visitors to disprove the animal’s existence.
Gods:
As far as gods are concerned, there is a distinction between a god existing and a belief in a god.
There is little doubt that there are no gods – the only origin of gods is man; man creates them in their thousands and imbues them with amazing powers that can be understood by the very simplest minds. (I cannot recall any god who in his holy text was able to elucidate the theories concerning the transport of oxygen by haemoglobin or the orbits of Quarks – but I could be wrong)
The belief in gods seems to be a genetic disposition. There is an advantage, as is seen in social societies – from Boy Scouts to Freemasons, if you are bound together by a set of unique ceremonies, you are likely to co-operate with your fellow believers and co-operation is a successful trait in human society. If your society is successful, your genes will be passed on, if it is not, they die out.
In Europe, at least, there is evidence that the need for co-operation underscored by a belief system is losing ground and other social networking and cohesion is taking place. A god-based system thus seems to be tending towards redundancy.
However, there a lot of people out there who, having given their lives to stating that there is a god (or are gods) are now fighting against the dawning belief that there is/are not. In the death throes of any belief system, the remaining adherents fight in inverse proportion to their number.
Robert
Sep 04, 2007 @ 02:20:03
The problem here is that you (that is, Carl Sagan) are trying to explain logical positivism in terms which someone with absolutely no understanding of philosophy (other than the occasional “deep thought” mixed with a casual awareness of the Standard Model) can understand. Without a solid grasp of the history of epistimology, it is extremely difficult for the other person to understand what you mean, and you end up with silly and irrelevant discussions like you see in the previous comments.
For example:
“If I said there was a Befesmun in my garage. Would you tentatively reject it? Probably not. You would ask me to define it. If I defined it as something lacking of any attributes that can be scientifically tested, would you then tentatively reject it? Probably not. You would have no basis from which to accept or reject that it existed as defined (all things being equal). ”
You can clearly see the influence of Aristotle here, which isn’t surprising as he influenced the Christian cosmology more than any theologian. But what the writer doesn’t understand is that Sagan’s argument isn’t being made from within this framework; positivism is a different framework, which completely rejects the metaphysical concepts which form the bedrock of this statement. To a positivist, it cannot be evaluated as an argument because it is incoherent.
This is the point people miss about logical positivism; it is reductionist, it does not say “God does not exist because there is no evidence for him”, it says “The statement ‘God does not exist’ is nonsense because the concept of ‘God’ is meaningless.” Unfortunately the distinction between the two is often lost on people without a strong grasp of epistomological theory.
So to answer the question posed: Yes, I would reject your proposition. You state that the Befesman has no qualities which can be observed or even could be observed (its only properties are metaphysical). When you speak about a “Befesman” you aren’t even describing an imaginary creature, you are referencing a word which has no meaning. Therefore I reject the statement “There is a Befesman in my garage”, not on the grounds that it is false, but on the grounds that it is utter nonsense.
Ian
Sep 04, 2007 @ 08:49:33
“The statement ‘God does not exist’ is nonsense because the concept of ‘God’ is meaningless.â€
That’s probably the most insightful thing I’ve read all week.
Jesse
Oct 04, 2007 @ 00:38:51
Carl Sagan is God.
Marie Sloan
Nov 12, 2008 @ 18:21:55
oj80qerx8m9c7umy
K
Nov 21, 2008 @ 05:17:58
I find this argument to be illogical. Some things simply must be taken on faith.
Can you prove that whatever you cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell exists at all? Does anything exist outside of your field of senses?
If you are going to state that anything that lacks evidence must be assumed not to exist then you must take it to its apex. Nothing exists but that which can be verified, and according to the story’s logic, verified by your own senses.
Unless you can prove to me that when I leave an area it continues to exist, I would have to assume that it does not exist, or take on faith that it does since there is no way for me to verify its existence when I am not there.
This is the philosophical argument proposed by George Berkeley. Berkeley theorized that individuals cannot know if an object is; they can only know if an object is perceived by a mind. He stated that individuals cannot think or talk about an object’s being, but rather think or talk about an object’s being perceived by someone. That is, individuals cannot know any “real” object or matter “behind” the object as they perceive it, which “causes” their perceptions. He thus concluded that all that individuals know about an object is their perception of it.
The only thing you can actually know and prove about the universe is that which you can perceive. But I think anyone can agree that no matter how advanced humans become we are never going to be able to perceive everything in the universe, and therefore must take on faith what we cannot perceive.
If you take it on faith that there is such a thing as objective good and evil, which I do despite my lack of perception as to what it is definitively, then there must be a universal definition of good and evil. And in order for the universe to have that definition it must have a creator, for a spontaneously self created universe would not have rules outside of those to which its make up demands.
lorena
Dec 18, 2008 @ 05:49:24
boring…..
believing in the dragon it’s called faith, you either have it or not… if you need proof, it’s not faith….