Talk:The Demon-Haunted World

message: :Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg

message: Just curious, are sources not cited because everything in this article can be found in the book? (Never worked on a book review before.) I only ask because every article I have worked on that has to do with religion has been plagued by demands for more and more sources, usually by people like the one above using all caps. :) Greenw47 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I'd like to see a section on the critical reception of this book and by critical, I mean by book critics people  - not critical as in opposed to.  This is a fairly important work of on the status Skeptical thinking at the time of it's writing.  It would be interesting to read what the book critics had to say about it, and especially any reviews by fellow skeptics or by religious figures who may have taken issue with the books various assertions.LiPollis (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reception

message: The article says "first published in 1995". My copy says "copyright 1996". The author died in 1996. The article has "Category:1997 books". A little consistency would be more convincing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon gives "Publisher: Random House; 1 edition (March 5, 1996)" for the hardcover -- however prepub reviews dated 1995. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication? 

message: It may be worth adding a section on references to the book.
For example at the beginning of this episode of Mr. Deity, the lead character is seen reading a copy of The Demon-Haunted World.
Aberdeen01 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to book 

message: A discussion to restore the first 14 sources of this version, including The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion to restore content from '''''The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark''''' to the [[Alternative medicine]] article 

message: I for one, think a table of contents would be valuable for this article. It would show exactly which pseudosciences he tries to debunk.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to explain which pseudosciences Sagan criticizes, then you can easily do that by other means than listing the names of the chapters of Sagan's book. Did that not even occur to you? As I said when I removed the list of chapter titles, there is no relevant information in them that cannot be better conveyed by other means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. No need whatsoever for a list contents. No improvement to article. David J Johnson (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: Isn't the Dragon in the garage another version of John Wisdom's Parable of the Invisible Gardener? Should this fact be included in this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldonogueira (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the metaphor employed in the book title is not explained—that is, the metaphor chosen as central to the book. How is it that people experience the world as "haunted," in particular by demons, and how does the scientific method seek to address (exorcize?) these demons? This is an interesting point to me; by employing metaphors of dragons and demons drawn from traditions of supernatural narrative, Sagan is himself acknowledging the persuasive power of the irrational in activating the imagination, and it's through reshaping the workings of imagination that one's thought processes can be opened up to new (scientific) explanations of phenomena. The book was mentioned in something I just read, so explaining the title is a suggestion by someone who came to the article to get a quick and casual understanding. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parable of the Invisible Gardener 

message: :He states that reason and logic would succeed once the truth were known.
I’m sure there’s quite a bit of subtlety and additional steps missing from this summary.  I would like to see it fleshed out a bit more, as the most current science claims the opposite.  In other words, reason and logic don’t win some people over once the truth is known.  Studies of Trump supporters, for example, have shown this to be the case. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason and logic 

message: Text says there are 20 fallacies and then the list only contains 14. Can somebody explain the inconsistency and improve the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.58.43 (talk) 4:44, 09 July, 2021 (UTC)
=== Agreed ===
I came here to say this. There are apparently six fallacies missing from this list, can someone with access to the book add them? I would but I don't have a copy myself.  DiscantX 04:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 vs. 14? 

message: I came here to say this. There are apparently six fallacies missing from this list, can someone with access to the book add them? I would but I don't have a copy myself.  DiscantX 04:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed