So, I was surprised that there wasn't already a thread about this, since the Netherlands were pretty late in airing it, I think.
What did you guys think of it? I really liked it. I thought it was a very good spiritual sequel to Sagan's Cosmos, without trying to be too samey. What I did miss, however, was the slightly more structured way in which Sagan explained things, but perhaps that is still to come.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Seriously, though, it's good. The visuals are stunning, and it nicely mixes the grandiose with the personal. I especially liked the little reenactment of the Flammarion engraving. And I thought it was critical that Tyson began with the scientific method, and also noted that Bruno's contribution to humanity was not that of a scientist. To be really educational, the show can't just be a recitation of facts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I showed this show to my students. One of the brighter ones asked me why they were purposefully trolling the church with it (that part right before Bruno burned where they shoved a crucifix in his face).
I'm glade they're tackling the more "contentions*" issues, but at the same time I do find it interesting the tone they decided to take. Not that I think it was a bad choice, mind you, but an interesting one. r/atheism is acting like this show is the coming of their Messiah.
*("Contentions" because some religious people don't get it, not because there is any real scientific controversy.)
The tone is more conciliatory in the second episode. Which covers The Big One: evolution. Tyson explains the facts, and some of what he says is clearly directed at fundamentalists, but it's with an open and extended hand, as it were.
As for Bruno... he may actually have been executed more for his pantheism than his cosmology - the show alluded to this, but only if you knew to listen for it. Either way, though, he was killed for his beliefs, and that's nothing to be conciliatory about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure if I would call the second episode "conciliatory," but I guess it might be considered more conciliatory than the first, as you say. The other science teacher out her in NM is a little more... conservative than I am (but still very liberal for out here). She was upset Tyson waited so long to explain the evolution was a theory. She still showed it to her kids in bolagy, and like the second episode as a teaching tool, but did have that gripe about it. (The blog-o-sphere is blowing up about how Tyson relating evolution to gravity was meant as a big middle finger, but they'd blow up about anything.)
As for the story of Bruno, I don't think anyone would really argue that the church has done some pretty horrific things, and any such list would have the Inquisition close to the top. However, I'm pretty sure one can only consider those last few scene of Bruno's story as inflammatory.
(The blog-o-sphere is blowing up about how Tyson relating evolution to gravity was meant as a big middle finger, but they'd blow up about anything.)
Evolution is actually on firmer theoretical and evidentiary ground than gravity. It doesn't have any big embarrassing inconsistencies with other well-supported theories in its math.
As for the story of Bruno, I don't think anyone would really argue that the church has done some pretty horrific things, and any such list would have the Inquisition close to the top.
Actually, the Italian Inquisition of which Bruno ran afoul was by far the less horrible of the Inquisitions. They very seldom did what they did to Bruno; he just really freaked them out. Not that it makes what happened to him any better, but statistically, it doesn't rate especially high on the list of historical Catholic mass murders.
Evolution is actually on firmer theoretical and evidentiary ground than gravity. It doesn't have any big embarrassing inconsistencies with other well-supported theories in its math.
I guess it would depend on which theory about gravity you mean when you say "theory of gravity," but--sure--some have less evidence than evolution.
Actually, the Italian Inquisition of which Bruno ran afoul was by far the less horrible of the Inquisitions. They very seldom did what they did to Bruno; he just really freaked them out. Not that it makes what happened to him any better, but statistically, it doesn't rate especially high on the list of historical Catholic mass murders.
Ah. Well, that pun wasn't intended.
I meant to convey the choice of story, and the visual depiction of the story, I toke to be purposefully provocative.
Happenstance is a cruel mistress. Your unfortunate misspelling when trying to clear the air amuses me in all the right ways.
OT: The thing that the Cosmos reboot has me most excited for is the inevitable Tyson edition of Carl Sagan's "The Meat Planet"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
I'm enjoying the new series so far. 'The Spaceship of Imagination' is a little groan worthy, but I get why it needs to be there. My wife and I were engrossed within a few minutes of watching.
I also like that he mentions holes in our current understanding as well.
Really disappointed with the fourth episode. They tell, but don't explain the theories, nor do they show how they got to those conclusions. I was watching it with my father and kept hearing "how do they know that" and similar things. Not a good things for a science show.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The fourth episode was a bit all over the place, from little piggy bugs to neutrinos. Was it an episode directed at the average American with an attention span less tha...hey, what is that over there?
The fourth episode was a bit all over the place, from little piggy bugs to neutrinos. Was it an episode directed at the average American with an attention span less tha...hey, what is that over there?
That's been the style of the series throughout: demonstrating the interconnectedness of science and showing that the world is just awesome (boom de yada). I do have to agree with Rodyle that this episode was too clipped and assertive. Also, they seem to have used a much more budget special effects shop for some shots. But you know what? Still awesome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think this episode means they are definitely going to cover global warming in detail. Can't wait to see the conservative blowback from that one.
It'll be about as predictable, boring, and counterproductive as your own partisan potshooting. The politicization of climate science is a huge problem, and attitudes like this are contributing to it every bit as much as those on the right. All you have to say about this vast global issue is how eager you are to see the guys on the other side of the aisle discomfited. Can't you see how messed up that is?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's like making fun of scientologists. No, I don't see a problem with it. They are the ones who decided to reject good science. I get to make fun of them for that. Flat earth society and anti vaccinators and all that. The goal isn't to convert climate change deniers, it has always been to convince people who are undecided and I am sorry, but climate change is important enough that some ostrasizing is okay if it means millions of people don't die.
You can dress up spite in as dignified a costume as you like, but underneath it all it's still just spite. The first thing I say when I talk about psychiatry isn't, "lol Scientologists." The first thing I say when I talk about geography isn't, "lol Flat Earthers." The first thing I say when I talk about immunology isn't, "lol Jenny McCarthy." You are the one who decided to place the political battle front and center, to frame the scientific issue as a piece in the game between liberals and conservatives. You are perpetuating the Manichaean narrative that ties one side of the debate to liberalism and the other side to conservatism. And that is exactly what we cannot afford. Not only because it ostracizes all conservatives - including those undecided people you claim to want to convince as well as those who are actually already convinced - but also because it entrenches liberals deeper in their position than the truth justifies.
I live in Nebraska. The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline has seen heavy play in the local news. There are certainly legitimate environmental concerns to be had about extracting oil from tar sands and then pumping it cross-continent in a big tube. But some of the claims made by the left in opposition to the pipeline were wildly exaggerated or simply false. (Notably, that a spill would penetrate to the Oglala Aquifer, or worse, contaminate the entire Aquifer.) They made these claims because they saw this as a political debate, not a scientific one; they were liberals, therefore they had to back every environmentalist-sounding claim they heard in order to defeat those dastardly conservatives. It became a game to win, not a truth to be discovered. And so the truth became obfuscated by both sides.
To be sure, not all liberals are like this, just as not all conservatives are climate-change deniers who seize on every opportunity however erroneous to defeat those dastardly liberals. In fact, a great deal of what I know about energy science and policy comes from my acquaintance with an engineer working at a major energy firm who is a card-carrying Democrat but first and foremost a scientist. We disagree about a lot of things, but I can trust him for a clear-eyed and even-handed assessment of the facts in his area of expertise, not least because he does not say or think things like "Can't wait to see the conservative blowback from that one" and "Truth has a liberal bias". He does not treat the science like a political football. And this makes him not only far more trustworthy, but also far less monotonous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So then how do you suppose we fix it? Remember, you have to take the following into account: the average American is an idiot, the conservatives in power are politicizing the issue, and politicizing the issue works.
This episode is a perfect example, someone tried to use science to counter the politicization and it took them 30+ years.
Also, in my original post, I was mostly alluding the fact that members of the religious right have come out repeatedly to say that they deserve equal time on Cosmos to show their side of the issue. You should accept that such a stance is patently ridiculous.
Lastly, truth does have a liberal bias, at least when it comes to humans who have a very bad habit of emotionalizing past events.
So then how do you suppose we fix it? Remember, you have to take the following into account: the average American is an idiot, the conservatives in power are politicizing the issue, and politicizing the issue works.
By fitting the issue into the liberal vs. conservative framework in your own mind, you're complicit in its politicization. I've already shown you how to fix it: think and speak like a scientist, not a partisan hack. People, even the "idiots" ( ), respond better to the truth if you're not acting openly contemptuous of them when you state it. I'm not saying it will be quick or easy, but at least it doesn't actively make the problem worse.
This episode is a perfect example, someone tried to use science to counter the politicization and it took them 30+ years.
But it happened. If he'd fed into the politicization problem by acting as you do, lead poisoning would have become just another partisan issue and we'd still be fighting about it today.
How'd you go so quickly from "climate change is important enough that some ostrasizing is okay if it means millions of people don't die" to "You shouldn't take life too seriously"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When you really wanted to start debating someone in the wrong forum because that person finds humor in people's stupidity. I decided really quickly to not start a huge thing here.
Keep thinking the episodes are a bit too disjointed. Do they expect us all to have ADHD or something? I have an attention span, makers. Please talk about the same topic for more than a minute, or at least make the different parts of the episodes a bit more connected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
What did you guys think of it? I really liked it. I thought it was a very good spiritual sequel to Sagan's Cosmos, without trying to be too samey. What I did miss, however, was the slightly more structured way in which Sagan explained things, but perhaps that is still to come.
Seriously, though, it's good. The visuals are stunning, and it nicely mixes the grandiose with the personal. I especially liked the little reenactment of the Flammarion engraving. And I thought it was critical that Tyson began with the scientific method, and also noted that Bruno's contribution to humanity was not that of a scientist. To be really educational, the show can't just be a recitation of facts.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm glade they're tackling the more "contentions*" issues, but at the same time I do find it interesting the tone they decided to take. Not that I think it was a bad choice, mind you, but an interesting one. r/atheism is acting like this show is the coming of their Messiah.
*("Contentions" because some religious people don't get it, not because there is any real scientific controversy.)
As for Bruno... he may actually have been executed more for his pantheism than his cosmology - the show alluded to this, but only if you knew to listen for it. Either way, though, he was killed for his beliefs, and that's nothing to be conciliatory about.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As for the story of Bruno, I don't think anyone would really argue that the church has done some pretty horrific things, and any such list would have the Inquisition close to the top. However, I'm pretty sure one can only consider those last few scene of Bruno's story as inflammatory.
Actually, the Italian Inquisition of which Bruno ran afoul was by far the less horrible of the Inquisitions. They very seldom did what they did to Bruno; he just really freaked them out. Not that it makes what happened to him any better, but statistically, it doesn't rate especially high on the list of historical Catholic mass murders.
groan
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Alright, I learned something new.
If you disagree with my statement, this isn't compelling. If it's not meant to be compelling, then how am I meant to take it? Glib?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I meant to convey the choice of story, and the visual depiction of the story, I toke to be purposefully provocative.
Happenstance is a cruel mistress. Your unfortunate misspelling when trying to clear the air amuses me in all the right ways.
OT: The thing that the Cosmos reboot has me most excited for is the inevitable Tyson edition of Carl Sagan's "The Meat Planet"
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
I also like that he mentions holes in our current understanding as well.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's been the style of the series throughout: demonstrating the interconnectedness of science and showing that the world is just awesome (boom de yada). I do have to agree with Rodyle that this episode was too clipped and assertive. Also, they seem to have used a much more budget special effects shop for some shots. But you know what? Still awesome.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It'll be about as predictable, boring, and counterproductive as your own partisan potshooting. The politicization of climate science is a huge problem, and attitudes like this are contributing to it every bit as much as those on the right. All you have to say about this vast global issue is how eager you are to see the guys on the other side of the aisle discomfited. Can't you see how messed up that is?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I live in Nebraska. The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline has seen heavy play in the local news. There are certainly legitimate environmental concerns to be had about extracting oil from tar sands and then pumping it cross-continent in a big tube. But some of the claims made by the left in opposition to the pipeline were wildly exaggerated or simply false. (Notably, that a spill would penetrate to the Oglala Aquifer, or worse, contaminate the entire Aquifer.) They made these claims because they saw this as a political debate, not a scientific one; they were liberals, therefore they had to back every environmentalist-sounding claim they heard in order to defeat those dastardly conservatives. It became a game to win, not a truth to be discovered. And so the truth became obfuscated by both sides.
To be sure, not all liberals are like this, just as not all conservatives are climate-change deniers who seize on every opportunity however erroneous to defeat those dastardly liberals. In fact, a great deal of what I know about energy science and policy comes from my acquaintance with an engineer working at a major energy firm who is a card-carrying Democrat but first and foremost a scientist. We disagree about a lot of things, but I can trust him for a clear-eyed and even-handed assessment of the facts in his area of expertise, not least because he does not say or think things like "Can't wait to see the conservative blowback from that one" and "Truth has a liberal bias". He does not treat the science like a political football. And this makes him not only far more trustworthy, but also far less monotonous.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This episode is a perfect example, someone tried to use science to counter the politicization and it took them 30+ years.
Also, in my original post, I was mostly alluding the fact that members of the religious right have come out repeatedly to say that they deserve equal time on Cosmos to show their side of the issue. You should accept that such a stance is patently ridiculous.
Lastly, truth does have a liberal bias, at least when it comes to humans who have a very bad habit of emotionalizing past events.
But it happened. If he'd fed into the politicization problem by acting as you do, lead poisoning would have become just another partisan issue and we'd still be fighting about it today.
The point... it's sailing over your head.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.