Cosmos (the new one!)

Jett. said:

Haven't seen ep2 but I'd suppose it was Titan

Click to expand...

Well, I *was* falling asleep at the time.

I didn't know there was an "old" Cosmos...

I've seen parts of the "new" one, and... I don't care for it. I like Nova and other PBS shows and I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but the pieces I've seen of Cosmos feel too... flashy? corny? trying too hard?

As I said earlier, I never saw the original Cosmos, so I don't have the same reference point as zoombie, but the thing I like about this is it is a Science Documentary ON PRIME TIME. Its nit hidden away on PBS or some cable channel, its right there trying to make it on commercial television.

Its not some insipid reality show, its an attempt to bring science to the masses. Its a wonderful experiment and we'll see if it lasts.

I'm another super-sciencey guy. I've yet to see the new Cosmos, and I never saw all of the old ones either. I've since seen a few Youtube clips of Sagan's Cosmos and very much enjoyed it.

I saw the promo a few months back and enjoyed it, and thought it was great, though it didn't give much of an indication of "how much science" the show would have.

Someone said something about effects - I'll have to see it, but I hope to hell it's not like THIS show - I liked seeing this new airship, but the way this "documentary" is produced, especially the "exploding" views, is reminiscent of the worst of MTV and Max Headroom:
http://www.history.com/shows/rise-of-the-machines/videos/rise-of-the-machines-super-airship#

Okay, I just saw the first episode (all three appear to be online) here:
http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/203380803583
It "expires" in 41 days - apparently you can view each episode online up to two months after it has been broadcast.

Okay, it's pretty good, really nice visuals and stuff.

Though I don't know anything about the history, I can see what people mean by Bruno's "lucky guess" - the part where he's saying the stars are just like the sun, and they have planets orbiting them, there's probably more than luck involved, it could be, as the link posted earlier implied, reinterpretations of what he said and wrote. If some peoples' interpretations are to be believed, the Bible has descriptions of nuclear explosions.

The "science" is there, and what's there is good, though it seems like there could have been more. I'll watch the other episodes over the next few days and see if I like them more.

Meanwhile, these are two of my most favorite science-related videos:
Nova "Secrets of the Psychics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFAvH8m8aI
Frontline "Prisoners of Silence"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXw8Ksvyt5Y (first of four parts, be sure to watch all four)

Video streams are all nice and shiny, but what they should really put on that website are footnotes. Y'know, links to all those great things you've just seen but forgot to write down, if you want to dig further. That's what the web's for, isn't it?

Calla Lily said:

Funny, the third ep turned me off a bit. He's getting preachy, just like Sagan did.

Loved the snark and backbiting history between all those brilliant scientists, though.

Click to expand...

Define "preachy" because I don't see it.

Sagan was a bit preachy.

He proposed for attention to our politic situation, warning us from the possibility that we might destroy ourself. It was in the midst of the cold war after all.

He forwarded the use of sensible rationality against superstition. Not as an attack on people spirituality, but as an awareness to look for real explanations behind appearances: how astrology (doesn't) work, why there are crabs with samurai faces on their backs, etc...

He also tried to give prospective of the human position in the universe, like in his beautiful 'Pale blue dot' speech.

I didn't find anything of that a bad thing. I still love the original Cosmos.

Seems it's just sciencey enough for creationists to start lighting their torches:

http://jezebel.com/creationists-are-getting-all-tantrum-y-over-exclusion-f-1550352798

I've never seen the old Cosmos. I think that can be explained by the fact that I'm still young. I honestly didn't even know their was on original.

I, however, have watched the new ones. The last one is still on my to do list but I was impressed and enjoyed watching.

The animations are funny and my preschool age son enjoys them, even if he doesn't fully understand the science.

I think most of us are aware that there's a difference between the hardcore "Creationists" who completely ignore science (and think the world is only 6000 years old), and the vast majority of religious/spiritual folks who don't see the need to fuel the "science VS religion war."

Sure, our ancestors had many "divine" explanations for the unknown, but that does not invalidate a person's connection to their faith and make lesser the reasons why someone is drawn down a certain religious/spiritual path.

I know so many people of faith (from across the religious spectrum) that have a deep love for science--one that compliments their existing beliefs. It's 2014. Religions in general have evolved. It's only the few that completely deny the importance of science.

Who knows, but yeah . . . this schism irritates me something awful.

As for the show, it's fun. I enjoy it. That said, I've see just as good on the science channel, History channel, Nat. Geo, etc.. I do like Neil, though.

Zoombie said:

And in response, the first 10 minutes of this episode has a GIANT MIDDLE FINGER to Creationists, saying that if the universe was only 5-6 thousand years old, then we'd only see light from the Crab Nebula...

Click to expand...

They demanded equal time.

Be careful what you wish for.

I send my kid to a Lutheran school. You have no idea how many arguments we get into over the age of the planet.

"Who told you the Earth was only 6000 years old?"

"My science teacher."

"Aw, shit. Really?"

"Dad's not a creationist, is he?"

So every opportunity I have to point out the universe is billions of years old, I take it. I loves the last Cosmos and its time travel theme. "If the universe was only 6000 years old, we'd only see this much."

See? SEE?

By the way, Tyson has a weekly podcast, where he answers questions posted though FB, Twitter, etc, about astronomy, science, even science fiction, time travel...
http://www.startalkradio.net/

Loving Cosmos. I know I also saw the original but it is nowhere near fresh enough in my mind to compare.

But loving this one. It is written in ink on my Sunday roster for the duration.

I still want a tardigrade!

Ah, so that's how you spell what he kept saying there. I was wondering.

Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to get your hands on a few billion.

Zoombie said:

And in response, the first 10 minutes of this episode has a GIANT MIDDLE FINGER to Creationists, saying that if the universe was only 5-6 thousand years old, then we'd only see light from the Crab Nebula...

Click to expand...

I've heard an argument against this that's basically solipsist - that God created the universe as we see it now (or as people saw ot 6,000 years ago, creating the light we see as already being on its way, 6,000 light-years away).

CrastersBabies said:

I think most of us are aware that there's a difference between the hardcore "Creationists" who completely ignore science (and think the world is only 6000 years old), and the vast majority of religious/spiritual folks who don't see the need to fuel the "science VS religion war."

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's obvious who makes the loudest noise (those such as Ken Ham).

I know so many people of faith (from across the religious spectrum) that have a deep love for science--one that compliments their existing beliefs. It's 2014. Religions in general have evolved. It's only the few that completely deny the importance of science.

Click to expand...

That (the part I bolded, of course) is a heretical statement! (Okay, where's that smilie holding the sign... - I'm suppressing a rant here).

Who knows, but yeah . . . this schism irritates me something awful.

As for the show, it's fun. I enjoy it. That said, I've see just as good on the science channel, History channel, Nat. Geo, etc.. I do like Neil, though.[/QUOTE]
I've only seen the first two episodes (catching up at http://cosmosontv.com), and I've yet to see much if anything I didn't already know (I'm a science nerd like that), but it's good stuff for a general audience, and a lot better than some of the stuff I've seen or heard about on those other channels (Mermaids? MERMAIDS???).

I'm another super sciency guy. My major in college was the history of science – and I agree with the unfortunate use of Bruno as a role model.

But I really like this show. The only problem is the concepts being dealt with are so complex and the history of science is so long, that any show like this can simply scratch the surface.

And NDT is great. And what the show does, imo, both with concepts and graphics, is to give just enough information to inspire young kids especially to take a real interest in science.

And it really does a fine job of giving a sense of the wonder and mystery of the physical universe – as well as the wonder and mystery of the entire panoply of life.

Is it a great show? Probably not, but it's a very good show, and very welcome. I'm actually pretty impressed with its accomplishments.

Not so impressed with last night's ep. From the animated clips given I expected it to be that the scientist slipped into madness from self-inflicted lead poisoning or something like that. Having him freak out in the supermarket sort of pointed in that direction.

Still a good show. Just sort of wandering last night...