Cosmos w/ Neil the Grass Tyson

[Joshua Adams]

Yes, it's true that new things have been learned since 1980. At the same time (as far as I can recall, anyway), those new advances didn't render the original series obsolete or incorrect in any substantial way. It is good as far as it goes, but of course it cannot go as far as a modern series would. I credit this to Sagan's carefulness to distinguish what he knew, from what was only a possibility. The science update subtitles on the DVDs usually went along the lines of "that hypothesis mentioned has since been confirmed as most likely the right answer."

Remaking the series means people are going to think the new one is the only one worth watching. The original does a great job of teaching about why science is awesome and also informs reasonably well about some of its contents. In an ideal world, I'd have liked to see Tyson build on it rather than have to replace it.

Anyway, the episode. I like the choice of using animated sequences to convey the past, but not so sure I like the choice of Bruno as scientific hero. It just felt like too much kowtowing to religious sentiment. I know that seems ironic since the whole thing was about the Church persecuting him, but the story was of a man whose beliefs were inspired by religion in some way (an infinite God would make an infinite universe, etc), and were vindicated. Consider the original series' episode focusing on Kepler, which also portrayed a man obsessed with an idea inspired by his religion. Kepler tried and tried to make his perfect geometrical solar system, which he imagined to be the only way a perfect God would make things, fit with the facts. After years of failure, he finally gave up and discarded his grand idea, realizing the facts were all that mattered. I'm not sure how historically accurate either portrayal is, but the message is quite a contrast. I speculate that Bruno was chosen over, say, Galileo because they were adamant that religion should not be portrayed simply as an enemy of science, and the framing was easier this way. So the segment became about warring conceptions of God, and will you please, dear viewers, believe the one that lets you also like science? Maybe the original Cosmos needed to be replaced not because it is outdated, but because it is too edgy.

Still, plenty of Cosmos coolness to like here. I hope this is considered enough to say about religion, and future episodes will focus 100% on what's wonderful about the universe and all that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Elucidate. Consider it a teaching moment.

When people do stupid things there is usually some consequence, and I was using 'reward' in the negative sense rather than the positive. Unfortunately sometimes when a person does something stupid, it is others who suffer the consequences.

[Kael]

The segment on Kepler was always one of my favorites and, insofar as our historical picture of him is accurate, he has always been one of my intellectual heroes. I think that ability to discard even our most cherished views when they don't fit the facts is perhaps the most fundamental and most difficult part of the scientific approach.

I haven't watched the new episode yet, but I'm sure I will sometime today or tomorrow.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by thedoc

When people do stupid things there is usually some consequence, and I was using 'reward' in the negative sense rather than the positive. Unfortunately sometimes when a person does something stupid, it is others who suffer the consequences.

Thanks., I thought you had some special hidden meaning, giving you cause to laugh at everyone else's ignorance about it. Now I see I got it in the first place.

[LadyShea]

I liked the story of Bruno, and was unfamiliar with it. His view of God (as described by the show at least) is one of the few I can respect.

A shallow, tiny God who craves blood sacrifice and cares about the sexual goings on of humans couldn't have possibly created this Universe

[Kael]

Finally got around to this. I liked it, overall. I'm not actually that fond of the animated sequences, the live-action of the original always made those historical snapshots seem more real to me. I'm hoping that, like the original, later episodes will go into a lot more detail and talk more about the actual evidence we have for these things.

Flashier visuals, of course, but I'm trying to suppress the hipster in me and not deride those just for the sake of shaking my cane at all the young'uns.

Neil is a good host, I can't think of anyone better suited for it today.

[Miisa]

I actually prefer the idea of animated version of re-enactments, I always thought live-action sequences with actors pretending to be historical figures was juvenile and boorish in documentaries, and much preferred it talked about instead; the animation takes it out of pretending it is "The Truth, recorded at the time" and separates it from the pure factual statements and visuals elsewhere in the show.

[SharonDee]

I finally had a chance last night to catch this and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought Mr Neil was the perfect choice to follow Sagan, but I especially think so now that I know about his early connection to him. The premises were kept interesting and I even sat through the commercials so I wouldn't miss a thing.

I never saw the original, even though I was a teenager at the time, because I was still, "Science: icky!" I wish now that I had. I fear that if I tried to watch it now the visual affects would seem dated and silly.

Disabuse me?

[LadyShea]

Yes it looks cheesy by today's standards, but Carl Sagan is Carl Sagan....you can live with the visual effects.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And if it doesn't make you feel small, you don't understand it.

interesting.

[Joshua Adams]

I liked episode 2, despite noticing a few moments where it oversimplified to the point of being incorrect. For example, when Tyson mentioned the tree of life, he made it sound like all organisms could be fit into this tree, but horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes (not in firefox dictionary--WTF?) makes this impossible for them. It is understandable that they wouldn't wish to open that can of worms, of course. Another was his mention of "5 mass extinctions," which as I understand it is highly debatable. The naming of 5 major extinctions dates from a paper written over 30 years ago, and it has since been said that such a division is somewhat arbitrary, with no clean lines separating extinctions into discrete events. Since he didn't even mention the five by name individually, I'm not sure what the point was of bringing this up.

Originally Posted by SharonDee

I fear that if I tried to watch it now the visual affects would seem dated and silly.

If you haven't yet seen the episode, they use footage from the original at the end, which will showcase some of its visual effects. When I read your post initially, that very scene--actually I think it is used more than once in the series--is what came to mind as an example of something somewhat crude-looking. That's probably about as bad as it gets, but I could be forgetting something (I've only seen the series, like, twice. It's not as though I have the whole thing memorized).

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

... they use footage from the original at the end, which will showcase some of its visual effects.

Did they? I watched the second episode and I don't remember seeing anything markedly inferior to the graphics that had gone before.

Perhaps I should give Mr. Sagan a try. If nothing else I'll get to see how much more we know now than we did then.

[wei yau]

We enjoyed the second episode as well.

My daughter's major takeaways were (1) the unnamed, as yet-to-happen mass extinction and (2) referring to our Nano as a "little wolf"

This, being Nano:

[Joshua Adams]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Did they? I watched the second episode and I don't remember seeing anything markedly inferior to the graphics that had gone before.

Perhaps I should give Mr. Sagan a try. If nothing else I'll get to see how much more we know now than we did then.

I'm referring to the animation showing the simple organism changing into gradually more complex things until it winds up as a human. It starts around 42:15 or so on the web video. It doesn't look bad, just ridiculously low budget. I wouldn't be surprised if Sagan himself drew the pictures. If made today it would be some fancy 3D CGI thing, but from the looks of it they're going to use a little bit of footage each episode to keep ties with the original series (extrapolating from current sample).

I watched it on the web, so if you saw it on TV, maybe they cut the last few minutes for time or because of lolfox.

[MonCapitan2002]

I was that animation sequence. Then again, I don't live in the Bullshit Belt. I do wonder how that station that censored the reference to evolution handled this episode.

[SharonDee]

One of you fine people must have given me the original Cosmos as an SS gift at some point. There it was, just sitting on my shelf and waiting for me to load it into the player. Surely I would have remembered buying it ...?

Anyway, I watched the first episode and I think the dated graphics won't bother me too much. It mostly helps me appreciate how much better they are with the new show.

New show: watched it last night, enjoyed it, and was happy to hear the guest actor's voice. I'd tell you who but I can never spell it right. Anyway, he was Buttercup's Wesley, if that tells you anything.

[Janet]

Cary Elwes

[Dingfod]

[erimir]

Originally Posted by wei yau

(2) referring to our Nano as a "little wolf"

This, being Nano:

Is that a Bichon or a Maltese?

[MonCapitan2002]

The finale for Cosmos just aired. It focused on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It was a great run. It is a shame that it is now complete.

[Ensign Steve]

Cosmos On Weed with Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

[SR71]

We Asked Scientists If Ted Cruz And B.o.B Had Anything In Common. They Had A Lot To Say. | ThinkProgress

I gotta give love to "The Grass" for getting on the Twitters to discuss things with the ill informed. This is funny to me.

[The Lone Ranger]

Never mind, I mis-read the article.

I can't help but wonder if B.o.B. isn't just trolling for attention. I hope so, anyway. Of course, according to several polls, something like 50% of American adults think the Sun goes around the Earth, so maybe it's not so outrageous that there are actually people who believe the Earth is flat.


As for Cruz and his ilk, I suspect that a lot of them are perfectly well aware that the Earth is getting warmer, and that human activities are largely to blame. But denying that fact is what their corporate masters (at least, those from Exxon, etc.) demand, and it plays well to the know-nothing, anti-intellectual, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing demographic -- that is, to the Republican base.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I would suggest that when the creationists present anything even resembling science, it should be considered, probably rejected but at least considered.

[Ari]

While I want to assume he's just trolling, BoB is the son of a Pastor who dropped out of school in 9th grade, so it's quite possible he believes what he's saying.