Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Michael]

I must admit that I wasn't expecting to be impressed by the remake of Cosmos, but after watching it tonight, I think it may be Tyson's best public presentation work yet. I was most impressed with his very touching tribute to Carl Sagan at the end. What a warm and very human touch of class! Really nicely done.

The only things I could think to even much nitpick about (other that the BB dogma) was I was a little surprised by the whole presentation of Giordano Bruno. He was sort of cast into the role of "scientific savior", complete with a crucifixion for his "heresy". The "awkward" moment for me came when Tyson had spent all this time building Bruno up as a "man with a religious/scientific vision", and then he immediately downplayed Bruno's beliefs as a "lucky guess". There was one more moment when he revealed his personal views when he talked about the meteor that wiped out the largest dinosaurs as a "random" event. Other than that, the whole presentation tended to have an almost "theistic" slant to it oddly enough, something I definitely wasn't expecting.

All in all, I liked the opening show a lot more than I expected. I was quite impressed and I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I expected.

I sure hope Dr. Tyson is willing to apply that whole "credo of science" he described at the opening of Cosmos, particularly as it applies to those three straight failures of "exotic matter" theory in the lab. I sure hope his entire basis for clinging to exotic matter theory after those failures at LHC, at LUX and in the electron roundness experiments isn't based strictly upon his nucleosynthesis arguments related to the amount of helium in the universe, otherwise he's putting his sacred "dark dogma" first, not the results of those scientific tests first.

 

[apache1]

Is this person related in any way to Mike "Ear Biter" Tyson?

 

[pgp_protector]

One thing I didn't care for was its depiction of the Asteroid Belt Density. showing it as though you would have to weave in and out of asteroids, not that it's mostly empty space.

 

[Michael]

One thing I didn't care for was its depiction of the Asteroid Belt Density. showing it as though you would have to weave in and out of asteroids, not that it's mostly empty space.

Now that you mention it..... In his defense, he did in fact talk about the distances between objects being quite large.

The Bruno thing was only thing that didn't quite 'work' IMO. If it was in fact a "lucky guess" on his part, then why hold him up as some sort of scientific savior figure, particularly since he claimed to be "divinely inspired" and apparently used religious arguments to support his case ("God is unlimited")? It's not like that was his *only* issue with the church either.

It "looked" like they were trying to bash on the church/religion but Bruno didn't really work as a scientific savior figure. What would "scientists" have done with "divinely inspired" visions and "lucky guesses" if was presented to them? It's not like they don't virtually execute their 'heretics' on their websites.

I don't quite get it. I got the impression they couldn't just stick to Galileo, because Galileo didn't pay the ultimate sacrifice for his heresy, and he 'recanted' when "put to the test". It seemed like they were trying to paint religion in the worst light, but it came off rather awkwardly. Why elevate Bruno to the status of "scientific savior" (complete with him rising into the cosmos in a crucifixion position), if it was actually nothing more than a "lucky guess" from the perspective of science? It didn't really work well IMO.

Some people get uptight when watching a historical depiction of Christ being crucified, because the villians happen to be portrayed by 'Jews'. They tend to neglect to notice that the Messianic heroic figure is also the 'Jewish Messiah', and all his followers are *Messianic Jews*.

Oddly enough they seemed to elevate a guy with a 'divine revelation' as a 'scientific hero' of sorts. It ended up being somewhat neutral toward religion, only because their savior figure was supposedly 'divinely inspired'. Bruno seemed like an odd choice as 'scientific savior' when he then turned around and immediately blew off this 'divine revelation' as a 'lucky guess' anyway.

It just didn't quite work well IMO.

 

[CabVet]

I missed it, do you guys know if there is a place to see it online? Or when they are showing it again?

 

[MikeCarra]

The hard part for Tyson is that for those of us who hit the original Cosmos right as we were getting jazzed on science we are always going to compare it to the far less "slick" and high production value original.

Tyson is a great presenter of public science and definitely deserves to take Carl Sagan's scepter and carry that on, but for geeks this was the same thing as Jay Leno taking over from Johnny Carson was to Tonight Show fans. It's gonna be hard to see him filling Sagan's shoes.

So it was kinda cool that Tyson had the 1974 datebook from Sagan showing his appointment with Sagan. It was kind of a symbol to us to accept him as the "heir apparent" chosen by Sagan himself from down on the mount!

I like N.D. Tyson and am glad someone with gravitas and a good sense of humor has stepped up to be the next Sagan (Bill Nye is a good close second).

The parts of the new Cosmos that bother me are the fact that it is very slick and of high production value which might endanger a deeper discussion of the science by distracting us with a lot more gee whizzy than the original could afford on a PBS budget. Oh yeah, and commercials really take you out of the moment. Ugh.

And I'm not entirely certain I'm going to like the "animation" side-bars. The Bruno thing was interesting and on its own would "work", but in "Cosmos" we are expecting something more mellow. Less "over the top".

 

[Embedded]

The only things I could think to even much nitpick about (other that the BB dogma) was I was a little surprised by the whole presentation of Giordano Bruno. He was sort of cast into the role of "scientific savior", complete with a crucifixion for his "heresy".

He was burned at the stake (after months of imprisonment and torture.) And he was condemned more for his 'heretical' theological views than for his views on cosmology.

The "awkward" moment for me came when Tyson had spent all this time building Bruno up as a "man with a religious/scientific vision", and then he immediately downplayed Bruno's beliefs as a "lucky guess".

I would agree with Tyson on this. It was a 'lucky guess.' He had practically no evidence. As Tyson noted, it wasn't until Galileo made his observations through a telescope that there was evidence that there were other 'worlds' out there similar to ours.

There was one more moment when he revealed his personal views when he talked about the meteor that wiped out the largest dinosaurs as a "random" event.

There is evidence that it was anything but random?

Other than that, the whole presentation tended to have an almost "theistic" slant to it oddly enough, something I definitely wasn't expecting.

Early cosmology was 'theistic' so understandable to describe it in such a way.

All in all, I liked the opening show a lot more than I expected. I was quite impressed and I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I expected.

Same for me. What little I saw of it I liked a lot.

 

[AirPo]

I missed it, do you guys know if there is a place to see it online? Or when they are showing it again?

FOX website, FOX on demand if you have it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I missed it, do you guys know if there is a place to see it online? Or when they are showing it again?

I believe it plays again tonight on the Nat Geo channel.

 

[Strathos]

Well we have learned quite a bit since Sagan's original.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

I missed it, do you guys know if there is a place to see it online? Or when they are showing it again?

Hulu has it

 

[Michael]

He was burned at the stake (after months of imprisonment and torture.) And he was condemned more for his 'heretical' theological views than for his views on cosmology.

That was kinda my point. He doesn't really make for a good "scientific poster child" in the first place, particularly since his beliefs were mostly based upon 'divine revelation' rather than "scientific evidence". It's interesting that the 'divine revelation' path got him there first mind you, but Tyson's flippant handwave of his opinions as a "lucky guess", pretty much burned him at the stake twice for his "sins" of being right, once within religious circles, and again within scientific ones as well.

I would agree with Tyson on this. It was a 'lucky guess.' He had practically no evidence. As Tyson noted, it wasn't until Galileo made his observations through a telescope that there was evidence that there were other 'worlds' out there similar to ours.

I think Galileo would have been a more appropriate starting point actually. I just didn't quite see the point of burning Bruno at the stake twice. It seemed rather awkward from my perspective, particularly since Bruno was in fact "right".

There is evidence that it was anything but random?

Is there evidence that life itself is purely random?

Early cosmology was 'theistic' so understandable to describe it in such a way.

True. Point noted.

Same for me. What little I saw of it I liked a lot.

I did too, surprisingly so. I don't really buy into the Big Bang dogma, but I liked the calendar visualization, Tyson's demeanor, and his infectious love of science. I respect that about him. I thought he did a good job and those were pretty big shoes to fill.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I reserve the right to spin on a dime and call Tyson out for this supernatural cosmology dogma as I see fit in future episodes.

For now however, I'm impressed.

 

[Michael]

Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years -- ScienceDaily

FYI, I think he already needs to update his calendar. Apparently galaxies in the mass range of our own galaxy were already around 12 billion years ago. According to Tyson, a galaxy our size didn't form until around March 15. These findings would push that date back to around February 11th in his creation mythos calendar.

By the way, one of the things an old guy like me remembers is all the failures to predict the age of the first massive galaxies. They keep pushing back the numbers further and further back in time based on every new observation.

What's it been, a whole day since his show came out, and already there's a data presentation error discovered. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Old Ned]

I thought it was great, the only thing I didn't like was the use of the word "Explosion" when referring to the Big Bang, but I realise this was done for laymans terms.

Not quite sure though, the presentation should have emphasised that the episode is a prelude to the series.
I've already had several people make comments to the tune that the whole story was told and I had to explain to them that the episode was not just the tip of the iceberg... but barely a snowflake on it. An extremely condensed overview of the full story.
One of my Creationist friends watched it and she basically "pfft" the whole thing as a "Weak" story.. lol, I explained she has to watch the whole thing before making her mind up.
I also thought it was funny that she mentioned "He said the Universe was made for us, wouldn't that require someone to make it?"
Naturally I facepalmed at this gross quote mine taken out of context and had to explain he actually said "We thought the sun and planets revolved around us in a tiny universe made for us"
And then explained this is the problem with viewing everything through Ken Hams Biblical Glasses, misinterpretation, misquoting, hearing only what they want to hear and reworking it to their own argument.

To anyone that does this... Try actually listening to what is being said instead of jumping on a single line that when taken out of context helps refute science... because really... you honestly think this series and/or Tyson is going to say something that helps the god argument?

Can't wait for the rest, I think this is going to get epic

 

[Shemjaza]

I thought it was great, the only thing I didn't like was the use of the word "Explosion" when referring to the Big Bang, but I realise this was done for laymans terms.

I had the same knee-jerk reaction to the word explosion.

But while an expansion of space isn't the same as a conventional chemical or nuclear explosion it is still a massive concentration of energy that causes stuff to spread apart so I think the word still basically fits.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

I enjoyed the cosmic calendar explanation, as I saw it broke it down as you will, in terms an everyday person could fathom.

 

[Michael]

I thought it was great, the only thing I didn't like was the use of the word "Explosion" when referring to the Big Bang, but I realise this was done for laymans terms.

Ya, if there was any truth in advertizing, he probably should have called it "the magic expansion event" that started Gutheology.

 

[Michael]

To anyone that does this... Try actually listening to what is being said instead of jumping on a single line that when taken out of context helps refute science... because really... you honestly think this series and/or Tyson is going to say something that helps the god argument?

I was half expecting to cringe every 10 minutes or so as he started dissing on supernatural constructs of "God", while peddling four of his own supernatural constructs under the guise of "science". I was pleasantly surprised actually. The Bruno thing was obviously an off the mark shot at religion, and he showed his own biases a few times, but I didn't feel too 'preached at', "yet" anyway. We'll see how it goes.

Can't wait for the rest, I think this is going to get epic

The graphics are definitely improved, the cartoons are a cool throwback to the original series, and Tyson's energy is infectious. So far, so good IMO.

 

[Davian]

Ya, if there was any truth in advertizing, he probably should have called it "the magic expansion event" that started Gutheology.

Did you create this thread just to throw mud?

I haven't watched it yet, but have downloaded a copy to watch later.