I will not evaluate the new Cosmos in the context of the old one, nor will I compare Neil Tyson to Carl Sagan. Instead, I'd like to focus on the fact that we have a brand-new, expensively produced, 13-part series on the universe and our place and time within it, airing simultaneously on ten networks. In my view, this was something to be thrilled about even before a single episode aired. And I'm really excited to see Neil get an opportunity to have a vehicle for his obvious talent at engaging and exciting the public about science. (Full disclosure: Neil Tyson is on the Planetary Society's Board of Directors, and was President of our board for several years. While I'm at it: Carl Sagan was one of the three founders of The Planetary Society. I came to work at the Society after Carl's death. It feels weird for me to call him by his first name, because I never met him, but all the other, longer-term employees of the Society call him Carl, so I've fallen into the habit.)
I (and other bloggers) can pick nits about too-close asteroids, and the problem of an animated Big Bang that expanded into preexisting space, and of the cherry-picking of history of the Bruno segment. And people should pick nits in any television show in which Neil is involved, because Neil himself is one of science communication's worst nitpickers; I can't tell you how many times I've heard him tell the story of how Titanic had the wrong night sky and James Cameron should've got that right since he was focused on so many other details and Neil complained to Cameron and Cameron fixed it in the DVD release.
Ultimately, this show will succeed or not based on how many people watch and on what kinds of questions they ask when they're done watching, and whether they seek answers to those questions, and how they feel when they answer them. The inaccuracies in the show won't generally lead people too far astray; in fact-checking some of the scenes I myself have learned a few things. I realize now that it's way too early to tell whether my daughters will, eventually, count this series as something that influenced them. But they want to keep watching, and we will keep watching, and that's good.
I don't plan on posting episode-by-episode reviews. I may just post one more blog entry about this show, after we're done watching the series. I hope we make it through all 13 weeks, because I think that would really be a big deal to my daughters. We'll see.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
I wish there was more stuff like this for the initiated. This isn't a slight against anyone, people learn what they learn when they learn it, but for me I already knew most (all I think) of what was in the premiere episode (which is what I feared going in). I was crazy about space when I was young and studied stuff like that from mid childhood to late teens. But I always found in taking the next step you dove right into heavy math and physics and it got very dry very quickly and that always either intimidated me, or didn't leave me with enough to capture my imagination and I got bored.
It's a great series, and I wish there was more like it for people who want to start learning about the universe and science, but I didn't get much from it. While I imagine this was just a general overview and there will be more in the later episodes, I still think it's going to be light on stuff that's going to be of use to me.
I guess poster like Photon and such would have good places for me to go and check out.
I did really enjoy Neil's story about Carl though.
If you can find them, BBC has put out a tonne of good documentaries that are more advanced than Cosmos, but still accessible:
- Order and Disorder
- Everything and Nothing
- Wonders of the Universe
to name three.
I'll go through my collection to see if I can remember others.
Really enjoyed last night's episode. I liked the Creature-eye view segment and the Tree of Life. The canine development was something interesting that i had never learned (or forgotten about).
The story begins with Neil sitting at a camp fire, and telling how the wolf changed through artificial selection, and selective breeding into the dog breeds around today. He then enters the Ship of Imagination, and explains natural selection with the process that helped to create the polar bears. Along the way he talks about DNA, genes and mutation. Next he goes to a forest and describes the Tree of life, this leads him to discussing the evolution of the eye. He then discusses extinction, by going to a monument called the Halls of Extinction, dedicated to the broken branches of the tree of life. Explaining the five great Extinction events. He then tells how some life has survived, and then focuses on the tardigrade. From there he talks about what other kinds of life might have been created on other worlds. He then goes to Saturn's moon Titan. From there he speculates about life and how it first began. He then returns to Earth and tells about abiogenesis and how life changed and evolved. The show ends with an animated sequence from the original series of life's evolution from one cell to humans.
I can't help but view this series as Tyson being a scientific evangelical and trying to convince Bible Thumpers as opposed to just watching it. I find myself constantly thinking "I wonder what the reaction to that will be ... or this, or that"
It sucks, but I can't help it. I want to just enjoy the awesome show.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I can't help but view this series as Tyson being a scientific evangelical and trying to convince Bible Thumpers as opposed to just watching it. I find myself constantly thinking "I wonder what the reaction to that will be ... or this, or that"
It sucks, but I can't help it. I want to just enjoy the awesome show.
I am not sure I agree. I watched it, but didn't feel particularly inclined to think that he was trying to evangelize evolution. It thought it was a necessary prologue to discuss life on other planets / moons and what shape they might take.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
I am not sure I agree. I watched it, but didn't feel particularly inclined to think that he was trying to evangelize evolution. It thought it was a necessary prologue to discuss life on other planets / moons and what shape they might take.
I would agree here. I also think his language is less geared towards trying to convert Bible Thumpers and more to help the internet-aged children understand evolution and the history of science in general. If he takes some Bible Thumpers' kids out of their indoctrination it's just more win.
Either way, can you evangelize the truth? I think the biggest point he is trying to get across is that there's not really an argument here. This is how things were/are. I also hear that a lot of stations re-edited the show to remove/clean-up parts involving the history on the supression of science in the first episode.
I would agree here. I also think his language is less geared towards trying to convert Bible Thumpers and more to help the internet-aged children understand evolution and the history of science in general. If he takes some Bible Thumpers' kids out of their indoctrination it's just more win.
Either way, can you evangelize the truth? I think the biggest point he is trying to get across is that there's not really an argument here. This is how things were/are. I also hear that a lot of stations re-edited the show to remove/clean-up parts involving the history on the supression of science in the first episode.
I think this is the best part. Science isn't being presented as an alternative. It isn't trying to debate anything. It is just being presented as the best current knowledge we have recognizing areas where more research is required. This is how science should always be presented, science isn't a debate it methodically tests the best ideas and those ideas which pass experimentation live on.
If people in general can get one thing out of science it should be that science is the testing of hypotheses where the ones that succeed are kept and the ones that don't are discarded. Re-educating people on this one simple thing would do great things in improving understanding.
I don't think this is directed at Young Earth Creationists. There are plenty of people both religious and non-religious that have just given up on science. Anti-Vaxxers, Homeopathy and other new age quacks, even peoples perception of luck. We live in a very non-rational world.
I think that most people could gain from watching this. My 5 year old enjoyed the 1st one so I think there is something for people of any age.
I can't help but view this series as Tyson being a scientific evangelical and trying to convince Bible Thumpers as opposed to just watching it. I find myself constantly thinking "I wonder what the reaction to that will be ... or this, or that"
It sucks, but I can't help it. I want to just enjoy the awesome show.
It definitely popped in my head, but I have to agree with the people that say he isn't evangelizing. I think it just feels that way because of all the stories we here on the other side of the spectrum nowadays.
He did seem to softly tiptoe into it, but it hardly seemed forced. As others have mentioned, it's an important precursor to explain the ideas and hypothesis of life on other planets, so I don't know how you get around it.
Lastly, we already know what the reaction is from the willfully ignorant, it's all over Twitter. They're going to freak out no matter how forceful or nuanced you show the information.
Tyson wasn't being overtly aggressive about it, but this episode was most definitely a shot across the bow of creationists. The entire segment about the evolution of animal vision was to debunk a popular "gotcha" used by anti-evolutionists who claim that the eye is too complex to have developed from less advanced vision organs, so therefore animals must have been created by an intelligent designer.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
