I finally reached a point with the TV show, How the Universe Works, where I turned it off. The episode, War of the Galaxies, first aired on 4/28/21, had this description: “ Galaxies are locked in continual combat across the universe and our own Milky Way will face its biggest opponent ever, the Andromeda Galaxy, in a titanic and deadly struggle that could create a new and unrecognizable super galaxy.” For some time I have been put off by the anthropomorphic approach of the show couching everything in terms suggesting the entire universe may be seen only through the eyes of one life form, in one solar system, in one galaxy. It was sad to see qualified scientists blathering on about wars and battles as if they were Orson Wells.
There are so few sources of good science on TV, a medium which can make so much use of its photo and graphic presentation assets. It is a waste to see these programs fall to the juvenile American thirst for faux drama. While not mentioning it directly, How the Universe Works seems, at times, to have an undercurrent of some form of intelligent design by way of the descriptions they use. It helps to have comparisons to use in illustrating complex issues, but their’s often seem to miss the mark.
Is there not enough fascination and wonder in the everyday workings of the cosmos that they need to stoop to dumbing down the subject matter?
I have enjoyed watching and learning from this show and respect many of the presenters. Why do they make a mockery of the natural forces of matter and energy which create rather than destroy, which alter simple physical reality rather than causing “death and destruction” as seen from a human standpoint?
@colomaio1. For some time I have been put off by the anthropomorphic approach of the show couching everything in terms suggesting the entire universe may be seen only through the eyes of one life form, in one solar system, in one galaxy. It was sad to see qualified scientists blathering on about wars and battles as if they were Orson Wells. There are so few sources of good science on TV, a medium which can make so much use of its photo and graphic presentation assets. It is a waste to see these programs fall to the juvenile American thirst for faux drama. While not mentioning it directly, How the Universe Works seems, at times, to have an undercurrent of some form of intelligent design by way of the descriptions they use. It helps to have comparisons to use in illustrating complex issues, but their’s often seem to miss the mark. Is there not enough fascination and wonder in the everyday workings of the cosmos that they need to stoop to dumbing down the subject matter?Good point, and it's a long habit, need to consider the audience they are trying to attract, I suppose it's a reflect of the delusional thinking that's become the norm.
Why do they make a mockery of the natural forces of matter and energy which create rather than destroy, which alter simple physical reality rather than causing “death and destruction” as seen from a human standpoint?Agreed. Why indeed? I think that gets down to fundamental beliefs and ego and avarice, the way we people create our god's to fit our egos and desires, then turn that thinking into dogma that permeates every thought of the culture.
Where do we go from here?
How do you get people to care about Earth’s biosphere which provides our life support system and so much more?
What are your thoughts?
My brother is an anthropologist/archaeologist and a few years older, so he challenged my perspective early on. It’s easy to forgive on one hand; what other perspective do we have? But unforgiveable on the other; if we don’t accept our place in the universe, we might have it revoked. I had a few emails with Frank Schaeffer about this, he insists that if we see ourselves in the actual proportion we are to the universe, then we see insignificance and that destroys hope, awe and a range of other things for him. He wants a universe where love came into being at the big bang and transported itself through the philosophy of Jesus and then to him.
I can see the desire for something like that, especially since he was born into a famous evangelical family and needs a replacement. But he actually spends time thinking about this stuff, and I can’t figure how it doesn’t occur to him that things like love or combat are human constructs. They have similar constructs in other species, but they’re still constructs.
Incidentally.
Lausten sound like your brother could benefit from listen to some Mark Solms and Antonio Damasio talks. The following was culled from the six week webinar course Solms offers.
https: //www. futurelearn. com/courses/what-is-a-mindThere is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the existence of instincts in us humans too.
Embedded deep within our brainstems is a 525-million-year-old structure (called the periaqueductal grey) that we share with all other vertebrates.
It generates the brute pleasures and pains of consciousness, and accordingly impels us to approach and withdraw from the things that evoke those feelings.
Above the brainstem, in the limbic system, at least seven further (more elaborate) instincts have been identified. These are about 200 million years old.
One of them makes us curiously explore environments.
… Another helps us identify things that satisfy our nutritional and sexual appetites.
… Another makes us avoid dangerous things.
… Another makes us irritable and aggressive when frustrated.
… Another makes us keep close to loved ones.
… Another makes us care for our young.
… Another makes us compete in the social hierarchy.
Of course, we humans, with our less-than-one-million-year-old huge prefrontal lobes, can inhibit these compulsive tendencies, but that does not mean they disappear and have no influence on our behaviour.
Ain’t it refreshing hearing me rave about someone, so much nicer than the Hoffman drama, necessary as that was. 
sound like your brother could benefit from listen to some Mark Solms and Antonio Damasio talks. --CCNot sure how your lists relates to what I said. The only thing my brother talked to me about was how our modern understanding of the universe tells us we are a recent phenomenon on the outer edge of one of many galaxies, yet our narratives tell the story as if it all happened with us in mind.
and I can’t figure how it doesn’t occur to him that things like love or combat are human constructs.I think that's the line that triggered it, and guess it was Schaeffer I was referring to.
Distant tangents are on my mind. ?
Besides I believe every thinking person owes it to themselves to become familiar with Solms’ and Damasio’s work.
Sounds like OP just has a problem with the tone of the show rather than the actual information being presented. I wouldn’t really call that “dumbing down science”, although there is only a thin line between the two things. Most scientists have that same problem. It’s not that what they say is wrong, it’s that they themselves are unlikable.
Science shows do tend to be either cheesy or boring anyway. I suppose you reach less people being boring.
I think that’s the line that triggered it -- CCWhen I saw what you quoted, it didn't sound like something I would say. But it was. In my context, I can see that I was TRYING to say something about the way that Schaeffer had constructed the love concept. "love is a construct" is oversimplified. Anyway. Peace.
?