It seems to be the ultimate guide to atheism. One of the very first lines was "Question everything." and they have been subtly unkind to religion in this first episode. (Rightfully IMO)
Anyone else see it? Thoughts? Am I just seeing what I think I want to see or is the criticism of religion in the show in regards to science real?
Watching it now, loving it.
The bit on Giordano Bruno was pretty much on point. But in his timeline of the universe, he mentioned the births of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, so he isn't totally staying away from it.
they have to play it right.
if they go on and just say "look you stupid morons, religion is bullshit, get the fuck past it already" people will just tune them out and nothing gets accomplished.
this gentle way is likely to open up people to science and maybe get people started on the right path.
It was ok, but not as good as the original--but that may just be because the information was knew to me when I watched the original and now (so far) it has been stuff I already knew.
I enjoyed all of it.
Vague enough? :P
Quote from: "Shiranu"I enjoyed all of it.
Vague enough? :P
I'll top that with more vague..I took a nap.
Quote from: "stromboli"The bit on Giordano Bruno was pretty much on point. But in his timeline of the universe, he mentioned the births of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, so he isn't totally staying away from it.
They have to give it some sort of human chronological context, that wasn't a volcano or tsunami killing many people like saying when Mt.Vesuvius erupted.
(//https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1/1911818_635719089827320_1001927456_n.jpg)
I hope that typo was intentional...
Quote from: "Plu"I hope that typo was intentional...
No idea, not mine, just saw it elsewhere.
I thought it was sci-fi, but then I saw in the credits the name Brannon Braga... no wonder.
On National Geographic they have been running the original with the new version. I think Sagan did as good or better. Nonetheless, it is good to have it on- Degrasse Tyson injecting stuff like how much evidence there is for the Big Bang and so forth, in an insistent yet nonthreatening way. No question the man has his shit together.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"It was ok, but not as good as the original--but that may just be because the information was knew to me when I watched the original and now (so far) it has been stuff I already knew.
Pretty much the same for me. The only thing new in it for me was the personal story he shared about his meeting Carl Sagan. Which I did think was kind of cool.
I didn't get to see it yet, but my friend shared a youtube link of the full episode that I hope to be able to watch today.
For anyone else that missed it like me, (or if you want to watch it again) here is the youtube video.
[youtube:2elxzjbh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFKOcWbHuKU[/youtube:2elxzjbh]
The show is not for "us"...it is for "their" children. And I was not totally impressed. Nice, but not the grab you and keep you. Hopefully the second one will be better.
Quote from: "aitm"The show is not for "us"...it is for "their" children. And I was not totally impressed. Nice, but not the grab you and keep you. Hopefully the second one will be better.
How would you have improved it?
The first episode of the original wasn't that great either. The old Cosmos took time to get the ball rolling, and this one will too. I, for one, got exactly what I expected, and I'm looking forward to more. :D
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
I saw it yesterday.
There is a lot of overlap, but it was the first episode. I can imagine it will have a lot more updated info with upcoming episodes. Plus, I do think you're right, aitm. I can imagine that Tyson and Mcfarlane's main goal is to inspire the younger generations to be fascinated by science.
Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "aitm"The show is not for "us"...it is for "their" children. And I was not totally impressed. Nice, but not the grab you and keep you. Hopefully the second one will be better.
How would you have improved it?
I don't have an answer for that sama, I just want this to be so damn frickin great that kids will flock to it, and maybe it did hit the right spot. I hope so.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I saw it yesterday.
There is a lot of overlap, but it was the first episode. I can imagine it will have a lot more updated info with upcoming episodes. Plus, I do think you're right, aitm. I can imagine that Tyson and Mcfarlane's main goal is to inspire the younger generations to be fascinated by science.
So far as I know, that is what Tyson's goal has and will be. He is very much like Bill Nye back in his prime in that regard imo... he loves science and he wants everyone else to love it too. And being as it is, the young are the best market for that.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "aitm"The show is not for "us"...it is for "their" children. And I was not totally impressed. Nice, but not the grab you and keep you. Hopefully the second one will be better.
How would you have improved it?
I don't have an answer for that sama, I just want this to be so damn frickin great that kids will flock to it, and maybe it did hit the right spot. I hope so.
Carl would have liked it, I suspect.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I saw it yesterday.
There is a lot of overlap, but it was the first episode. I can imagine it will have a lot more updated info with upcoming episodes. Plus, I do think you're right, aitm. I can imagine that Tyson and Mcfarlane's main goal is to inspire the younger generations to be fascinated by science.
So far as I know, that is what Tyson's goal has and will be. He is very much like Bill Nye back in his prime in that regard imo... he loves science and he wants everyone else to love it too. And being as it is, the young are the best market for that.
Indeed. Reality hasn't set in yet for most of them. Given the choice I would have preferred a degree in higher science profession but considering I went back to college later in life the reality was to finish asap and get to work, so I settled for IT.
It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction? It's distracting. Also I felt some of the explanations were far too tidy. There are competing theories of the origin of the Moon, isn't disingenuous to depict only one? What was the deal with the CGI Tiktaalik? Did it really march onto land like that? They had gills didn't they? Maybe I'm betraying my own ignorance there.
We'll see how the next episodes go. Until then, there's still the BBC's Wonders of the Solar System/Universe with Brian Cox, my fave.
Quote from: "Naberius"It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction? It's distracting. Also I felt some of the explanations were far too tidy. There are competing theories of the origin of the Moon, isn't disingenuous to depict only one? What was the deal with the CGI Tiktaalik? Did it really march onto land like that? They had gills didn't they? Maybe I'm betraying my own ignorance there.
We'll see how the next episodes go. Until then, there's still the BBC's Wonders of the Solar System/Universe with Brian Cox, my fave.
Might be other theories to the moons formation but that's the most widely accepted one to my understanding. Computer simulations have shown it to be possible. Which is kind of cool because perhaps for a short time Earth had a ring(s).
Yes it had gills, that was the point, their belief that sea animals like it learned to live on land over time, eventually shedding the gills and the flippers evolving into limbs.
Quote from: "Naberius"It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction?
Because Sagan did it. Cosmos has always used devices like this to keep things moving; it would be more surprising if Tyson's series
didn't re-use and expand on them.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Naberius"It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction?
Because Sagan did it. Cosmos has always used devices like this to keep things moving; it would be more surprising if Tyson's series didn't re-use and expand on them.
Beat me to it, but yeah the ship is from the original Cosmos, just made prettier.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Naberius"It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction?
Because Sagan did it. Cosmos has always used devices like this to keep things moving; it would be more surprising if Tyson's series didn't re-use and expand on them.
Beat me to it, but yeah the ship is from the original Cosmos, just made prettier.
Um yeah, there is a reason they brought the guy in from the Star Trek series/movies. :P
I don't know if FOX has some control of what to show or not, even in COSMOS.
Quote from: "Naberius"It was definitely a feast for the eyes. I'm not sure I dig the whole "spaceship of the imagination" thing though. If it's supposed to be a show about science, why take cues from science fiction? It's distracting.
Like others have said, Sagan did it. But it's also a handy way to mentally transport the audience to the area of universe in question by getting them to imagine that they're in a ship looking at it. They often do the same thing for undersea documentaries.
QuoteWhat was the deal with the CGI Tiktaalik? Did it really march onto land like that?
It's not really known. It's hypothesized that Tiktalaak lived mainly in shallow water and only occasionally ventured on land (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Paleobiology) in much the same way that present day mudskippers do. But regardless of how much time it actually spent on land, its features do represent an intermediate stage between fish and early tetrapods.
I really wish they showed more intermediates (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapods#From_water_to_land), though. Wouldn't want anyone mistakenly thinking the evolutionary change was quite so abrupt and linear.
Quote from: "Naberius"What was the deal with the CGI Tiktaalik? Did it really march onto land like that?
I had the exact same reaction. I recoiled when I saw that. If they were trying to show it as an evolutionary transition of large ocean organisms to land dwelling creatures, I have doubts. The last I've read, current thinking is that the transition most likely happened at a near microscopic level. But maybe, like the moon thing, they only had time to show one school of thought.
Quote from: "dawiw"I don't know if FOX has some control of what to show or not, even in COSMOS.
In the original series, I had the feeling Sagan had a lot of control over content, possibly even the final say. I didn't have that feeling this time. I have the vague feeling that content was controlled by producers and creators, not so much by scientists. Tyson may have been hired more as a poster boy. I don't know this, of course. It's just a feeling I get.
(//https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/579209_10151945790116167_1616640786_n.jpg)
Quote from: "dawiw"I don't know if FOX has some control of what to show or not, even in COSMOS.
In some parts of the country, the last bit on evolution was cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K-LrJkEDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K-LrJkEDc)
Was it done by accident or not, we won't know but that it took place in the "bible" belt makes it suspicious.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "dawiw"I don't know if FOX has some control of what to show or not, even in COSMOS.
In some parts of the country, the last bit on evolution was cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K-LrJkEDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K-LrJkEDc)
Was it done by accident or not, we won't know but that it took place in the "bible" belt makes it suspicious.
I got the whole show here in TN.
I loved it. It was good, fast-paced, dynamic.
The music of Vangelis will always be missing. BTW, the story of his meeting with Carl Sagan was not new to me. I watched tons of Tyson videos on Youtube and he talked about it in one of them. But I really don't mind that they included it here, it was very a propos.
One of my favorite quotes is from Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Quote“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.â€
The original with Carl Sagan was excellent, and I have watched the series several times, as recently as last year. The original was aired 34 years ago, and science has learned a tremendous amount since the original. I'm eager to see this new information presented in this series.
Tonights episode was as pointed as the previous, religion got hammered. Good stuff.
I thought it was a very good episode both in its criticism (not necessarily blunt, rather subtle most of time actually) of organized religion as well as just a good background on Newton, Hooke and Haley.
My favourite part though was when he talked about Oort (someone I knew very little about) and pointed out that, what does that say about us as a species, that we know the names of mass murderers and not Oort?
GOOD STUFF! Love how he portrayed Newton, and the conflict with Hooke. Degrasse Tyson not only has an obvious love for what he's doing but a real ability to state it understandably. And he just as obviously shows a reverence to the scientists that went before. Great guy, great series!
I was actually kind of shocked at the way he confronted religion and superstitious behavior and unapologetically punched it right in the face. I am sure there will be a growing opposition to the show because of it, but I am curious to see how much momentum that will get. The less outcry, the more my faith in humanity grows.
For those who didn't see it last night, DeGrasse Tyson asserts that religion and belief in God or Gods stems from people seeing patterns of phenomena that they can't explain any other way, and that we bridge knowledge gaps out of some inherent need. He said it only slightly more gently than that.
One of my cousins emailed me this morning.
"Total failure on Tyson's part last night!"
"What part?"
"All of it."
"Have you actually watched it?"
"No, but the emails I've been getting are very clear he failed again."
Reaching some believers just ain't possible.
Hm, I was trying to watch the first episode but the mirror linked to in this thread was broken and I can't find any others on youtube. Anyone have an active link for it? :(
Have you tried cosmosontv.com?
It's only available to US-viewers :(
Quote from: Mermaid on March 24, 2014, 07:59:10 AM
For those who didn't see it last night, DeGrasse Tyson asserts that religion and belief in God or Gods stems from people seeing patterns of phenomena that they can't explain any other way, and that we bridge knowledge gaps out of some inherent need. He said it only slightly more gently than that.
He also said inserting god where we don't know the answer has kept us from expanding our knowledge. Big kudos from me for that.
Torrents my friend
kickass.to
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: wolf39us on March 24, 2014, 10:09:25 AM
Torrents my friend
kickass.to
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Be sure to bag it up first.
Quote from: Plu on March 24, 2014, 09:12:38 AM
Hm, I was trying to watch the first episode but the mirror linked to in this thread was broken and I can't find any others on youtube. Anyone have an active link for it? :(
Yes, but can't post. Torrid Orrenteh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVF9lZ-i_ss
Torrents sound like a fairly bad idea to do from my work computer. I was hoping to run it on the background while I work.
Quote from: Plu on March 24, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
Torrents sound like a fairly bad idea to do from my work computer. I was hoping to run it on the background while I work.
oh... Yes that is a bad idea then.
Hmm I can probably host it for you lol
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Gotta remember to watch it tonight. Forgot to set my reminder yesterday. -.-
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Gotta remember to watch it tonight. Forgot to set my reminder yesterday. -.-
Just watched episode 3. Most informative one so far for me. Lot's of stuff I didn't know.
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2014, 12:23:59 PM
Just watched episode 3. Most informative one so far for me. Lot's of stuff I didn't know.
About the only thing I did know was the comet was named for Halley, not because he discovered it, but because he predicted it. Orbital mechanics was his bitch.
Probably beating the drum for Tyson, but he really has hit the right notes so far. He has explained human behavior and why we have religion, and why it is obsolete. And he has shown the scientific process as well, with Giordano Bruno and how the Principia Mathematica came to be. He has also shown what a brilliant man Halley was. Yeah, I get to watch each episode twice. I will no doubt buy this when it comes out on DVD and give it as a gift to my grand kids.
Quote from: stromboli on March 24, 2014, 12:36:02 PM
I will no doubt buy this when it comes out on DVD and give it as a gift to my grand kids.
Don't let them watch it until 2061. That's freak 'em out.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/comedy-central-offers-creationists-answers-genesis-weekly-time-slot-present-scientific-facts
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 24, 2014, 09:30:32 PM
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/comedy-central-offers-creationists-answers-genesis-weekly-time-slot-present-scientific-facts
I don't see why they would refuse. Comedy Central is exactly the kind of place where Creationism should be aired!
Aw man, I was hoping comedy central would actually host that show. I'd watch it for sure.
I wonder what would happen if they actually made it and aired it. It's not like there's much the creationists can do if the show actually represents their normal 'arguments' and 'evidence'.
Last night, I watched an episode of Stargate Atlantis, where they travel back to Earth for a conference of the brightest scientific minds of our time. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye both appear in the episode, and in more than simple cameo roles. They each have appropriate lines, and Bill Nye becomes actively involved in preventing the fabric of space time from being ripped apart, and thereby helps save the universe. LOL
I like it. What I like the most is the designed landscapes. They show what they are talking about.
It's very hard to find pictures of how things looked 1 billion years ago. Not many programs do it.
My next blog( plug, plug, plug, :biggrin:) will be on harmonic oscillators, which is based on Hooke's law. So epi 3 was quite approriate for me as I have been writing down that equation, which BTW became the basis of Quantum Field Theory. If only Hooke was alive today to see the impact he had on science.
If there is a criticism of Tyson's treament of Hooke, it is because he comes off the villain in the episode. He was a polymath, and while his other accomplishments might not apply to the focus of that episode, Hooke was a very capable man. He was one of the first to assert, before Darwin, that fossils were an important clue to past earth history and were evidence of species die off, which was at the time theologically unacceptable. Regardless of how he is portrayed, he was an important man of science.
I never watched the original (hadn't even heard of it before). So I'm glad this new series came out, it's litteraly awesome. The special effects are great, the host does an amazing job and the information is immensly interesting.
I understand what you mean with 'unkind' to religion. But I'm not sure if that's the appropriate term. I get the feeling that their main interest is to bestow knowledge and information in a captivating way based on 'storytelling'. 'Unkind' however, has always been associated in my head at least with bias, and I think they just want to bring the facts out there in consistent and captivating way. Or to put it like this; they're not trying to actively make religion look bad, I think, rather that's just a consequence of the facts they present.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 02, 2014, 05:14:19 AM
I understand what you mean with 'unkind' to religion. But I'm not sure if that's the appropriate term..... They're not trying to actively make religion look bad, I think, rather that's just a consequence of the facts they present.
I suppose it's unkind in that it doesn't treat religion as worthy of the status religious people think their stories deserve. In fact, science has never been unkind to religion. It simply treats creation stories as myths, whether they be the stories of the Egyptians, Native Americans, Hindus, or African Bushmen. While it's not unkind, it is indifferent. Indifference is the opposite of "love".
It also leaves the priests, shaman, imams, and various holy men, stripped of their powers, and the result is resentment from those with much to lose. Now you've got con-men like Ken Ham, sitting there on a multimillion dollar creation museum that he's passing off as historically true, and science fails to fall to it's knees in praise and jubilation over it. He ends up looking like a snake oil salesman rather than someone respectable. That's got to sting.
Looking forward to seeing it myself, it certainly is in serious need to be more up with the times than in Carl Sagon's times.
Cosmos episode: the Immortals
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/episodes/the-immortals/
NDT is a god, seriously. He looks at different aspects of the possibilities and theories of what might have happened, explaining not only what science knows but also what scientists hypothesize about. He opens doors for conversations as well as explaining causation and why we think the way we do. My respect for the man grows with every episode.
I've unfortunately missed the last 3 episodes :\.
Follow Stromboli's link.
I have enjoyed the new Cosmos series thus far, but I am surprised they haven't covered quantum physics and the discovery of the Higgs boson yet. I am sure they will.... but I feel as if the series has just covered old ground so far. Very little new information for me. Since the original Cosmos we have had a wealth of shows like Through the Wormhole, The Universe etc... that have delved deeper into modern and emerging science (quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, Higgs field etc...) than the new Cosmos has.
One thing I really like about the new Cosmos is how much time is given to lesser-known scientists and the world-changing discoveries they made. It really shows how science is a team effort made of small steps, building upon what others have done before. Cosmos seems to be more about *how* we know what we know, rather than covering the newest advances in science.
The original Cosmos really blew my mind as a kid. The new Cosmos hasn't done that yet, but I appreciate it for what it does differently. It has a lot more competition now (from the shows I mentioned above), so it seems like they went a different direction, focusing more on the scientists than the science.
Hopefully in the last few episodes they will talk more about where science is taking us and what discoveries have been made recently.
NDT is doing a fantastic job.
I agree, a lot of old ground is being covered, but that is because Sagan did such a good job the first time. And I too hope that the findings of the LHC and later discoveries will be showcased. I give it to DeGrasse Tyson- he is a fearless man and has showcased Cosmology and science for a new generation. I honestly admire the guy and I'm a big fan of what he does.
I just can't get into the new series that much. I find DeGrasse Tyson to be a really awkward speaker. Oh well :/
I like the new Cosmos series. I was a science major and much of the stuff he's covering is review for me, but I really like listening to him talk about it. He's an inspirational person and the passion that he clearly has for science is infectious. I've always liked him.