It's hardly the first poll to show something like this. It's been known for awhile that the US ranks near the bottom of the list of western countries that believe in evolution and the Big Bang. We're like #32 of 34 or something like that.
I minored in physical & cultural geography in college (major was anthropology). I never appreciated a trip through the Rocky Mountains from Red Deer to Vernon, B.C. so much as during/after taking those classes. Before, during many trips taken throughout my childhood, it was just "pretty scenery." After... when I actually knew what I was looking at and how it came to be that way (including the trip from Red Deer to Calgary, where debris from the glaciers' last retreat is still plainly visible if you know what to look for), I was in AWE. And no, Oprah Winfrey, you may NOT insist that means I believe in god. That said, the rainforest on Vancouver Island is one of the most spiritual places I've ever been, and the last time I was ever in the Rockies was a quick jaunt to Banff & Canmore in April some years ago, with a friend. We ended up taking a drive to Lake Minnewanka, which was still 99.9% frozen over. It was chilly and the air was crisp... and it was so incredibly beautiful and relaxing there. There's no reason spiritualism and science can't co-exist, as long as it's kept in mind that one is a state of mind and mental well-being and the other is science that explains what it is that gives a person that feeling of well-being. I never get asked interesting stuff like this, but maybe I'm just not on the right calling list. The last research poll I got called for was whether or not I'm worried that the new polymer Canadian money that replaced the paper bills are more or less likely to be counterfeited. These polls are "recorded for quality assurance and staff training purposes", are they not? That's the standard phrasing in the sessions I've had on the phone with these people. So there's a possibility that some supervisor or other person could actually hear you say, "Y'know, this is a really badly-worded question that won't give you good information." And while the one asking the questions has a script to follow and can't deviate from that, at least your objections would be on record there. That said, it's the Big Bang that's the more pertinent part of the question, not the exact number of billions of years. I'd have held my nose and stuck up for the Big Bang.
I think you're probably giving the respondents a little too much credit here. Maybe the poll could have been worded better, but it's still a safe bet that what most were not "confident" in was the theory itself. Not the fact that they simply did not know the exact date it happened. If it just came down to not knowing the date, it's likely the question regarding the Earth's age would have gotten the exact same response, since I don't think 4.5 billion is a number everyone just automatically knows (the confidence level sadly still wasn't great, but at least people seem a bit more willing to accept that one).
I'm not drawing any conclusions about the respondents. My point is that the poll is too badly constructed to permit drawing any reasonable conclusions from it. Just because someone publishes a poll, that doesn't mean we should embrace it as gospel. We should always take a look at the methodology and figure out what it is the poll actually says or doesn't say before we start citing it as truth. And this is too vague a poll to cite as evidence of anything, even something that we have reason to believe is true. We would need better data to support that conclusion. In general, it should always be presumed that anything the mass media report about science is probably wrong or distorted, because most reporters don't understand a damn thing about science. So skepticism toward science news is an essential defense mechanism. Whatever it is the headlines and articles say, we should reflexively question it. We should look past the headlines, track down the original data, and take a careful look at what it actually says, rather than just trusting a reporter's spin on it.
Interesting episode this week, though the discussion of the fates of larger stars was kind of rushed, I felt. I really liked the visualizations of Eta Carinae and its nebula, which have been of considerable interest to me for years as a possible subject for my fiction. What he said about the effects of the hypernova on surrounding systems agrees closely with my understanding, so that's reassuring. Nice focus on the overlooked female scientists. I liked the reference to the fact that the word "computer" originally meant a person -- usually a woman -- whose job was to perform meticulous calculations. What we call computers today were originally called electronic computers, because they were a technological way of doing a job that had formerly been done by humans. Although I think the narration could've explained that better, since the "computers" reference might've sounded confusing to people who didn't know the original meaning. A lot of Sagan quotes in this one. The standout was "A still more glorious dawn awaits," which I think Sagan said about the exact same idea in the original, the dawn of the galaxy as seen from a world around a globular cluster (though I don't the galaxy would be bright enough from that distance to be fully visible -- the core would, but the disk would probably be fainter). But there were also allusions to a couple of episode titles from the original Cosmos, "The Lives of the Stars" and "The Backbone of Night." (Although they avoided quoting Sagan's famous "We are starstuff," going with "stardust" instead.)
I first read about Henrietta Levitt in a book about star names. It's fascinating to trace how the stars were named by the different cultures, what the names mean, and what their official designations tell us about them. I recognized those quotes, but dammit, the music in the original Cosmos - the original, before the "Cosmos Update" revised episodes - was spectacular. This time it was... much less so. Agreed. And considering that some day we're all going to end up together in the same cloud of interstellar dust, it makes a lot of current stuff going on around the world seem awfully petty.
I love our Sun. I'm curious as to what our world will be like one billion years from now, when the Sun gains 10% more luminosity. I figure "hot" will be an understatement.
I'd bet at that point there would STILL be idiots running around denying that global warming was occurring.
It felt like something was cut out there for time, like he was going to say more on the subject but then it just jumped to the next bit. Because a billion years from now is when science estimates that the Earth will cease to be habitable altogether -- unless we engage in some kind of massive engineering like moving its orbit outward, or lifting enough hydrogen from the Sun to make it a cooler, longer-lived star.
No. In the U.S., at least, single-issue voters rarely swing elections except in the most extreme of districts - and climate change is not nearly as contentious an issue as, oh, gun regulation. It's not like there are scads of reps here who've won their seats because of their vociferous and dedicated declarations that they don't believe the evidence indicating man-made climate change. If there are strong anti-environmental currents in electoral politics here it's because they tend to bundle with local economic anxiety - belief that this or that proposal will cause job problems. Fears about immediate consequences outweigh long-term concerns. Anyway, last night's episode seemed to be one of the better-written ones. I fell asleep somewhere after the explanation that the Pleiades were all formed in one "stellar nursery," which I guess was past the half-hour mark.
No, they'll be pointing out the same things they do now. "The planet isn't warming because of my charcoal grill, it's warming because the giant ball of fusion in the sky is having a solar grand maximum. Aside from the small increase in visible light output, the large increase in UV affects the Earth's upper atmosphere, while the expansion of the sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from more cosmic rays, reducing cloud formation and decreasing the Earth's albedo, while leaving more water as heat-trapping vapor instead of light-reflecting clouds."
This show, while I'm enjoying it and will not miss an episode, pales in comparison to Carl Sagan's show. It's not the content or the visuals, it's the narration. Carl's narration was what made the show... They would have done much better not choosing Tyson. The "Dirty jobs" guy would have been much much better. Neil is so hard to listen too... The music is very well done. I hear some "trek" in there...
His uptalking annoys me. The music is part Trek, part Contact (the movie based on Carl Sagan's novel). There are entire musical passages lifted intact from that movie (yes, I've seen it that many times that I can recognize the music).
A GREAT sci-fi movie... I hadn't seen it till about a year ago (if you can believe it). Love everything about that movie.
The infinite scope of the universe and the vast depth of time really make all our problems on Earth look absurd. I read a book a few years ago about Earth's fate as the sun expands. At that point IIRC the Earth is a dead planet, life is long gone and the oceans have evaporated. I think the book said that Earth only has around 400 million years left before the sun becomes too hot for life. Although by that time Mars will have warmed up and we could live there for a while.
Have you read the book? There are some rather interesting changes in some of the characterizations and the plot. We should figure out a way to terraform it, then - at least enough for an atmosphere and ozone layer.
Mike Rowe? Hell, no! I like Mike Rowe, but narrating this? No. Neil does a fantastic job, and is a worthy successor to Sagan. Mike's a good guy, but Neil actually understands the physics underneath his narration, just as Carl did. No, no, Neil does just fine.