Tyson's Cosmos

I was just reading about Giordano Bruno. I find it incomprehensible what a difficult time the catholic church has learning from its own mistakes. They have formally expressed regret about the way Galileo was treated but to this day they have continued to defend their imprisonment, torture and murder of Giordano Bruno. I find it hard to come up with words to describe how insane that is.
It's what theistic religion does. It's done worse, too. Lois I agree but its just mind boggling that almost 500 years later a supposedly more enlightened church is still unable to admit that burning people at the stake because they disagree with you is not a very nice thing to do. Sex out of wedlock is a sin but burning people at the stake is just another day at the office to them. Making sense has never been the church's strong point. Lois

I thought the scond episode worked better than the first. Still not crazy about the cartoon animation style, but I think that may be a generational thing. :wink:

And let the butthurt begin!]

If you think the first episode of the new Fox Cosmos series was controversial (with its relatively minor mentions of climate change, evolution and the Big Bang), Sunday night’s show threw down the gauntlet. Pretty much the entire episode was devoted to the topic of evolution, and the vast profusion of evidence (especially genetic evidence) showing that it is indeed the explanation behind all life on Earth. At one point, host Neil deGrasse Tyson stated it as plainly as you possibly can: “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact." (You can watch the full episode here.)
Not surprisingly, those who deny the theory of evolution were not happy with this. Indeed, the science denial crowd hasn’t been happy with Cosmos in general. Here are some principal lines of attack:
Denying the Big Bang: In the first episode of Cosmos, titled “Standing Up in the Milky Way," Tyson dons shades just before witnessing the Big Bang. You know, the start of everything. Some creationists, though, don’t like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos asserts that “the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned."
Alas, this creationist critique seems very poorly timed: A major new scientific discovery, just described in detail in the New York Times, has now provided “smoking gun" evidence for “inflation," a crucial component of our understanding of the stunning happenings just after the Big Bang. Using a special telescope to examine the cosmic microwave background radiation (which has been dubbed the “afterglow" of the Big Bang), researchers at the South Pole detected “direct evidence" of the previously theoretical gravitational waves that are believed to have originated in the Big Bang and caused an incredibly sudden and dramatic inflation of the universe.

And let the butthurt begin!]
If you think the first episode of the new Fox Cosmos series was controversial (with its relatively minor mentions of climate change, evolution and the Big Bang), Sunday night’s show threw down the gauntlet. Pretty much the entire episode was devoted to the topic of evolution, and the vast profusion of evidence (especially genetic evidence) showing that it is indeed the explanation behind all life on Earth. At one point, host Neil deGrasse Tyson stated it as plainly as you possibly can: “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact." (You can watch the full episode here.) Not surprisingly, those who deny the theory of evolution were not happy with this. Indeed, the science denial crowd hasn’t been happy with Cosmos in general. Here are some principal lines of attack: Denying the Big Bang: In the first episode of Cosmos, titled “Standing Up in the Milky Way," Tyson dons shades just before witnessing the Big Bang. You know, the start of everything. Some creationists, though, don’t like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos asserts that “the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned." Alas, this creationist critique seems very poorly timed: A major new scientific discovery, just described in detail in the New York Times, has now provided “smoking gun" evidence for “inflation," a crucial component of our understanding of the stunning happenings just after the Big Bang. Using a special telescope to examine the cosmic microwave background radiation (which has been dubbed the “afterglow" of the Big Bang), researchers at the South Pole detected “direct evidence" of the previously theoretical gravitational waves that are believed to have originated in the Big Bang and caused an incredibly sudden and dramatic inflation of the universe.
"Some creationists, though, don’t like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos asserts that 'the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned'." Yessiree, unlike creationist accounts that have answers for everything. Lois
From my limited reading about Bruno I still would think of him as a hero. It seems to me that unlike Copernicus and Galileo, Bruno was more of a philosopher. I get the impression that he had some revolutionary ideas although he did not have the science and the math to back them up like Galileo. despite that he felt strongly that his ideas made sense and he stood his ground even in the face of a death sentence.
I've been reading up on him some more since then, too. I'm just saying the animation made him look a little like a crackpot. I liked the second episode, too. I don't think they tried to do too much. Sure this was all basic stuff to us, but to most people (especially here in the South) natural selection just isn't talked about in polite company. I saw in on the National Geographic Channel. I wonder what Fox did... delete the entire episode? :)

How much butthurt can Creationists take?]

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.
Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will “ever give a Creationist any time," Faulkner responded by lamenting that “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all." Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed."

Gosh, you reckon we should complain until the Creationist museum gives equal time to evolution?

The cartoons must stop. It’s impossible to take this Cosmos seriously when they keep popping up. They must feel their audience requires such mummery.

Gosh, you reckon we should complain until the Creationist museum gives equal time to evolution?
Excellent point. I love it. Lois
The cartoons must stop. It's impossible to take this Cosmos seriously when they keep popping up. They must feel their audience requires such mummery.
Its probably cheaper than hiring reenactors to do the segments and it also allows them to indulge the vanity of various people. The producer, Seth MacFarlane, has done the voice for several characters (he was Bruno in the first episode), and he's gotten a number of big name voice over actors to work on other episodes (as well as Cary Elwes of Princess Bride fame) to lend their talents to the episodes. No doubt he could have gotten some big name stars to work for scale (Kirsten Dundst probably would have done it since she grew up with Sagan's kids) in live action reenactments, but then you'd have the distraction of people saying, "Hey! That's what's his name!" and not catching what the piece was about. Remember, anyone old enough to have seen the original Cosmos in its first airing is not the target demographic for this series. Its for everyone born after that date. They're more likely to be receptive to the cartoons than older folks.
The cartoons must stop. It's impossible to take this Cosmos seriously when they keep popping up. They must feel their audience requires such mummery.
Huh. I noticed the slightly stickish movements in the first week, but I got over it. This week, I was a minute into the animation when I suddenly thought, "hey, this is animation". When I was a kid, we used to laugh at Japanese special effects, later we marveled at how real special effects became, now people look at something the actual Northern Lights and compare it to a Star Wars scene. I think we've become lazy with the use of our imagination and instead critique things as not "real looking" enough. Great episode BTW. The birth of science is my favorite subject. The baby waking up in the universe was a great analogy.
The cartoons must stop. It's impossible to take this Cosmos seriously when they keep popping up. They must feel their audience requires such mummery.
Its probably cheaper than hiring reenactors to do the segments and it also allows them to indulge the vanity of various people. The producer, Seth MacFarlane, has done the voice for several characters (he was Bruno in the first episode), and he's gotten a number of big name voice over actors to work on other episodes (as well as Cary Elwes of Princess Bride fame) to lend their talents to the episodes. No doubt he could have gotten some big name stars to work for scale (Kirsten Dundst probably would have done it since she grew up with Sagan's kids) in live action reenactments, but then you'd have the distraction of people saying, "Hey! That's what's his name!" and not catching what the piece was about. Remember, anyone old enough to have seen the original Cosmos in its first airing is not the target demographic for this series. Its for everyone born after that date. They're more likely to be receptive to the cartoons than older folks. I suppose you're right. But a voice-over providing narrative while paintings and drawings or pictures are displayed would work fine for me, and avoid the juvenile nature of the animation. Even the voices struck me as less than credible, which is explained if McFarlane is involved in those as well. Perhaps we should be thankful preposterous talking dogs and babies aren't employed, with Newton and other emminent scientists telling fart jokes in exaggerated Boston accents. But we have depression medication being sold through commercials featuring a sad-looking cartoon woman and pills and clouds with facial features, and that may just be the way of it, now. For me, it's hard to feel sympathy or empathy for cartoons.

:snake:

:snake:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Even more cartoons. If they’re going to do that sort of thing, they should have Rocky and Bullwinkle doing the narrative, or at least Tooter the Turtle and Mr. Wizard. It could at least be amusing. I can watch no more. Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome; time for this Cosmos to go home.

I have given up after the second episode. Though I did turn it on for a minute last night to see the female biker. That was sooo wrong! Why would they pick a white female? Sexism 1; racism 0.

I have given up after the second episode. Though I did turn it on for a minute last night to see the female biker. That was sooo wrong! Why would they pick a white female? Sexism 1; racism 0.
Sarcasm?

Had to chuckle a little as Tyson tried his hand at acting as he slipped across the event horizon of the black hole.
There was a lot to cover in this one and I was glad that a few times he let us know that he couldn’t stop and explain the concept he needed to discuss this week’s topic but that he would get back to it later. I recently heard him trying to the explain the idea of everyone being in the center of the universe, that is, no matter where you are, in whatever direction you look, you can see only as far time has allowed the light of those distant objects to get here. I’m still not sure I get it, since I still have a problem thinking of the Big Bang as having a central point.
Back down on earth, I like the way he includes the big names like Einstein, then links back to the less known names like William Herschel, demonstrating the building blocks of science and how it is a community. If a similar series was done about Christianity, it would go; Origen said God was compassionate and allowed for free will but he was declared anathema when Augustine created the idea of original sin and said curiosity is bad but Aquinas tried to say reason could be used to reach God and Calvin didn’t really like that so the Inquisition tortured people who believed what he said and all of them fought wars against Luther and his followers until everyone got tired of doing that and laws were made that people could worship as they please.

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.” What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.
But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois