1 reply to this topic

[Selena]

So, there are a lot of geeks on LA. I can't be the only one watching the new Cosmos, right? What do you all think of it so far?

 

I like that it's definitely trying to be it's own thing. It has tie-ins to the old series, because it was so important for a lot of people, but it also has its own unique flavor. Sagan was all poetic and deep and spiritual. Tyson is more active and bouncy and excited. And both shows reflect these personalities, I think. The new one's more energetic. 

 

And, of course, it's good to have a show with updated information.

 

It's pretty broad in its approach -- maybe feels a little rushed at times because of how much they're trying to generally cover -- but it's one of things where you've got to remember that they are trying to educate the general non-science-loving public. So it's not going to be super detailed. 

 

They also aren't pulling any punches on the topic of evolution, either. Which I liked very much. They don't call religion out directly, because they know that not everyone who is religious is automatically a young earth creationist, but they're doing a lot of tongue in cheek commentary on the fundamentalist mindset. While also explaining how the scientific approach is spiritual and profound in its own way.

 

But I really like the show's layout so far, and I'm enjoying it. Wish I could binge watch it. One episode per week? How did humanity survive before Netflix? 

 

 

 

Anyway, the site's here:

 

http://www.cosmosontv.com/

 

 

You can watch full episode on there if you don't have live TV (for a limited time, anyway).

[deep]

I never watched the original Cosmos, but I am immensely enjoying the balls-to-the-wall CGI for everything.

 

It does drag a little, but I can't fault an hour-long science edutainment show for pacing too much.

[Kisseena]

Don't forget the

 

[Twinrova]

Nope, definitely can't have

 

 

 

 

without

 

 

 

 

 

 

[deep]

You have my begrudging acknowledgement.

That was kinda clever and maybe funny.

[Kisseena]

Nope, definitely can't have

 

 

 

 

without

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BURDS

[Selena]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Twinrova]

You have my begrudging acknowledgement.

That was kinda clever and maybe funny.

 

You're welcome.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Eh... I kind of like it. The CGI is very pretty. But it's not all that exciting to me because much of it is information I know already, at least from what I've caught of it on TV.

[Sir Deimos]

I wish I was watching but I usually have my hands full on Sundays. One of my friends posts the religious fundie tweets the show receives. It hurts me as a person.

[Egann]

I wish I was watching but I usually have my hands full on Sundays. One of my friends posts the religious fundie tweets the show receives. It hurts me as a person.

 

It's not entirely unjustified. This version is MUCH more aggressively anti-religious arguments than the original. I remember most of these moments in the original, but they were also spread over a dozen episodes of scientific discussion.

 

 

Eh... I kind of like it. The CGI is very pretty. But it's not all that exciting to me because much of it is information I know already, at least from what I've caught of it on TV.

 

Yeah, I had that problem, too. The science isn't all that interesting because not much has changed since the original Cosmos aired.

 

I think the CGI is a bit over the top. Some of it, like the redesign of starship imagination, works pretty well (really, anything would be better) but there's just too much of it.

 

 

I do appreciate trying to replace Sagan's concern for Cold War holocaust with global warming, but they are very heavy-handed about it. Tyson explicitly states that volcanoes ignited coal deposits, which released CO2, which caused bacterial blooms to release toxic gas.

 

This is all well and good, except that carboniferous plants you can make coal from don't pre-date the Permian extinction long enough to make coal deposits anywhere near that big. Fact is there is almost no consensus on what caused the extinction or even if it was a single event. Coal deposit fires might have played a role in it, but we don't know. This particular story isn't about edifying me as a viewer, but making CO2 into a modern villain.

 

Of course, they don't want people like me to watch their show because I will fact-check their claims when I smell manipulation.

Edited by Egann, 18 March 2014 - 09:25 AM.

[deep]

Heavy-handed? Between two entire episodes, you're (over)reacting to a single throwaway line. There are two reasons why this doesn't matter. The first is that while the coal gap does exist and presents a problem in creating a clear picture, we have solid evidence that global temperature was up just under 15 degrees, and that CO2 was 9x higher than it is now. Coal or no coal, there was a significant, undeniable greenhouse effect happening. The second reason this doesn't matter is that 99% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is valid and driven by greenhouse gases like CO2. The show doesn't need to "manipulate" viewers, because the debate is over. Your "fact-checking" isn't a threat.

 

I wish I was watching but I usually have my hands full on Sundays. One of my friends posts the religious fundie tweets the show receives. It hurts me as a person.

 

You can watch it anytime at its website.

[Delphi]

I've only caught bits and pieces but what I've seen so far I've enjoyed. The visuals are very fun but I'm a sucker for any pretty space sequences. Most of it is stuff I'm already rather familiar with but I like how it's presented.

Maybe I missed the part of the episode in question but I'm not getting an antireligious vibe so much as just a lot of excitement on the subject. Which I like. Excitable scientists that show passion are my favorite. Then again while I am religious I'm also not a young Earth creationist and believe that if God created the laws of the universe than he has to abide by them but I'm going to stfu before this gets bumped to Contro.

All in all I like how to show in approachable to nerds who may already know this stuff and someone flipping through channels who may know nothing about this but learns something new. Education all around is a good thing in my book.

[deep]

I've only caught bits and pieces but what I've seen so far I've enjoyed. The visuals are very fun but I'm a sucker for any pretty space sequences. Most of it is stuff I'm already rather familiar with but I like how it's presented.

Maybe I missed the part of the episode in question but I'm not getting an antireligious vibe so much as just a lot of excitement on the subject. Which I like. Excitable scientists that show passion are my favorite. Then again while I am religious I'm also not a young Earth creationist and believe that if God created the laws of the universe than he has to abide by them but I'm going to stfu before this gets bumped to Contro.

All in all I like how to show in approachable to nerds who may already know this stuff and someone flipping through channels who may know nothing about this but learns something new. Education all around is a good thing in my book.

 

It's not really anti-religion. But by asserting that the Earth is old and that the Big Bang happened and that things evolve, it's immediately taken as a pro-science propaganda attack.

 

The first episode told that story of a religious man persecuted by other religious people (and Oxford intellectuals, mind). It was a very spiritual piece and made not a single allusion to religion being something harmful. Bruno was a man who decided the concept of God was too small, could be even more grandiose.

 

However, the second episode sort of directly took on the Intelligent Design argument of "the eye is too complex to not be intelligently designed" (sad they didn't also do the argument of "Bananas fit in your hand so perfectly ergo Intelligent Designer"). No names were mentioned, and religion was most certainly not invoked in any manner.

 

But again, you challenge anything remotely tied to the Bible and suddenly it's an attack on religion.

[Selena]

Yeah, it's not really anti-religion. It's anti...fundamentalist. Rather, it's against the mentality and flawed logic of said fundamentalists. A key quote from the last episode was:

 

"Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We're not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers."

 

This show has been very good to point out that our scientific knowledge about existence can be wrong, and will continue to potentially be wrong as we discover new things about the universe, but that the scientific method is the pathway to unlocking the greatest mysteries. Because the laws of existence are logical and orderly and can be tested in such a manner. It's just a matter of working and exploring. 

 

Whereas a great deal of creationists just want the answer to those great mysteries now, and they find said answer in their holy books. And leave it at that. With that mentality, science being "wrong" about something is an instantaneous "GOTCHA!!" moment for mainstream creationists. Because "HA HA YOUR SCIENCE WAS WRONG THEREFOR MY RELIGION IS RIGHT!" Because even though scientists openly acknowledge - and even enjoy - being proved wrong about something, as this unlocks new pathways of research, the need to have all the answers right now is justification for the hardcore religious folk to just completely shut the door on the scientific process. 

 

Which is chiefly the mentality that the show is poking at. Because it's harmful both socially and scientifically. 

 

The show also says point blank that we don't yet know how life originated, so it's not being outlandish. I wouldn't say that the show is remotely heavy-handed in its delivery -- it's just not beating around the bush like so many other shows do. Which may make it seem heavy handed, even though they're technically using kid gloves.

 

 

 

 

Both this show and the original Cosmos were designed to appeal to the layperson, so yes, anyone looking for precise minor facts will notice that some stuff isn't 100% accurate. Because the show wasn't designed for us. It was designed to excite and give rudimentary education to the people who would normally be watching the Kardashians. Some points of research have been greatly condensed (to the point where it's mind boggling for those of us who do know science), and other segments have been dramatized.

 

They are fully aware that people well-educated about science are going to point out the minor inconsistencies that arise from huge fields of science being condensed into an hour long program. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're hoping that people will go out and do fact check and research more because scientific discovery is the WHOLE POINT OF THE ENTIRE SHOW.

 

So no points awarded for pointing out minor inconsistencies or potential points of scientific controversy. There are inevitably going to be some due to the limited time frame. This show is a gateway drug to further scientific exploration, not the Bible of Science. Which is, again, the point.

[Delphi]

I really respect people who can say "I don't know" and usually followed by "but I'd like to."

I think you're right on when you say it's poking fun at fundamentalists. Being so hard line about something, religious or not, that you can't open your mind to the possibility that we don't know everything is detrimental to learning all around.

All in all I think there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". Only that we shouldn't be content with never trying to know. I personally think I'd be a sad say when we can never again as a species ask "Why?" Or "How?"

[Egann]

(*Kick*) I wasn't really intending to reply again, but as we could probably use the activity....

 

After the first two (and a half) episodes it has gotten better, but as a personal taste thing I really don't care for it. The bed time stories with science are nice and all, but it's not really my thing.

 

The first is that while the coal gap does exist and presents a problem in creating a clear picture, we have solid evidence that global temperature was up just under 15 degrees, and that CO2 was 9x higher than it is now. Coal or no coal, there was a significant, undeniable greenhouse effect happening.

 

The coal gap literally has nothing to do with anything. It refers to a period through the early Triassic when coal deposits were missing or very thin. We have coal deposits from before and after, however. This does not suggest a coal fire because that would have eliminated the older deposits. It suggests the plants which made coal were dead or rare through the early Triassic.

 

The problem is every source I have looked into said "we don't know what caused it, but we have some ideas." Instead of admitting ignorance, though, Cosmos proceeds to make a narrative out of a bunch of those ideas like we know more than we actually do.

 

Weren't you just complaining about people not saying "I don't know"? And this bit of hypocrisy just happens to be on a current political hot-button?

If they had been consistent and said "we don't know what happened, but maybe you'll figure it out" I would have raved it and called it genius. They didn't.