Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

[davejames]

Well, if the Creationists feel targeted by the show they're not just being paranoid; the creators clearly consider it their brief to push back against misrepresentations and misunderstanding of science being used to further political/social agendas. That said, there's not much in "A Spacetime Odyssey" that's likely to accomplish that - just many proud assertions of scientific integrity. That's the kind of thing to bring cheers from people who already agree with them rather than enlightenment to the uninformed, misguided or uncertain.

Well it's doubtful anything would have convinced the vast majority of creationists out there-- and that's assuming they even made the effort to watch the show in the first place.

But for all the criticism on here (and I do agree the storytelling isn't quite as focused as it could be), the one thing I think the show IS doing really well, like the original, is just exposing people to a vast array of ideas and scientific concepts they may not have heard before (like being made of "star stuff"), and providing a better perspective on just how inconceivably old and huge our universe is (with things like the Cosmic Calendar), and showing the many amazing and incredible things scientists HAVE discovered about our world and universe so far (such as with the "hidden cosmos" around us from the last episode).

It's easy for us to take all this stuff for granted, but there's a great many people who have likely never heard some of this before or given it much thought. And given the state of science education in this country (and the people who insist on believing ridiculous things), I think it's probably enough just to expose people to the basic ideas and concepts.

 

[Timewalker]

Anyways, how does everyone who saw the original think of Tyson as a host? Is he better/worse than Sagan?

Worse. I know he's enthusiastic, and modern audiences love him. I have seen some of his shows from before, but while they were interesting, they didn't inspire me.

Carl Sagan inspired me. As for the question "does Cosmos ever change anyone's mind/outlook"... yes. I used to be one of those twits who never missed checking the daily horoscope, or prattling about astrology (I was also into real science, but for some reason hadn't fully let go of the pseudoscience).

Original Cosmos and some very plain, easy-to-understand explanations cured me of that pseudoscientific nonsense. I'm also much more skeptical about "extraordinary claims." Show me the extraordinary evidence.

 

[Mudd]

Tyson's mannerisms are less annoying than Sagan's - the latter seemed to think that he was conveying awe and wonder with each syllable that fell from his lips, but I don't think he'd rate better than a gentleman's "C" at Columbia School of Broadcasting. Tyson even gets to poke a little fun at "billi-yuns and billi-yuns."

 

[Timewalker]

If you're going to compare voices and speech patterns, Sagan's voice never squeaked, and he didn't uptalk in the middle of his sentences. Tyson does both of those, and it's annoying.

 

[davejames]

Lol. I haven't noticed any of this "squeaking" myself. Some of Tyson's hand movements may be a bit awkward at times, but I think his voice sounds fine.

And I also get a kick out of the little disbelieving or "oh brother" looks he gives to the camera at times as well, and the other little hints of personality that we didn't really get with Sagan.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm mildly underwhelmed by this series so far - most of the episodes are rambling and disjointed, skipping from topic to topic and making very little clear for the naive viewer. I doubt that "A Spacetime Odyssey" is going to have nearly the impact or be well-remembered to the extent that "A Personal Journey" was.

This. I've got two episodes on the DVR and I just can't get interested enough to start it.

I love science, I adore documentary. I'm just finding this series... underwhelming.

 

[gturner]

Well, I tuned out from the last episode after the chlorophyll factory tour, because it was getting a bit silly, and was followed by Tyson talking about the revolutionary changes in energy production if we manage to unlock the secrets of plant photosynthesis so we can make use of sunlight as efficiently as they do.

That's bonkers. Solar cells are already far more efficient than photosynthesis, which has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 8% (which is never realized) and a practical efficiency of less than 3%.

 

[Forbin]

Tyson speaks well, but he blinks and squints WAY too much.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, there's a little something political in the "harnessing photosynthesis" boosterism, not to mention the silliness of the repetitious "trade secrets" thing - maybe the writer thinks that's a metaphor or something, but in fact it's just nonsensical use of the phrase.

 

[gturner]

Well, some of the series will be more than a bit nuts. The writer could go into a disturbing psychological profile of Adam and Eve, and how they lived in a maximum security prison with 24 hour surveillance and knew nothing but fear, and carried deep mental scars because they never had a childhood, etc. Or we might get the bits about how we should all go to planetariums as places of divine worship. We've already been treated to the nonsense about Bruno, who wasn't executed for refusing to recant his belief in other solar systems, it was his desire to lead a world-wide religious war against Christianity that got him in trouble. But at least she no longer believes in von Daniken's ancient aliens or Velikovsky's worlds in collision. So we're going to get some weird stuff, perhaps even a bit about how we should all smoke weed to get in touch with the heart of the cosmos, but at least we're not going to get the really weird stuff.

But I suspect the quips about trademarks came from Dyson, who is convinced (he's obviously an astrophysicist and not a historian), that no private entity has ever explored anything significant in the history of mankind, despite the examples of Columbus (who raised half the funds from private backers and was looking to make lots and lots of money), Magellan (who was partially funded by his religious order and partly by grants to profit rights on trade with any land he found, including various monopoly concerns), etc. Tyson seems to think the world was discovered by government sponsored missions, without noting that they just went around to all the places privately founded and settled tens of thousands of years earlier, before big governments existed.

 

[Amaris]

Tonight's episode was an excellent example of the scientific method winning out over corporate interests, and also shows that not all corruption comes from the church. In this case, there are people with science degrees who can be bought, and it takes someone with a genuine interest in getting the facts and the data to everyone in order for such corruption to be exposed.

It's also a good example for people to see that one shouldn't just trust authority, even a scientific authority, without examining the data. Critical thinking, and the use of the Scientific Method, will bear out success, though it might be an uphill climb against prevailing "wisdom."

 

[Christopher]

Thank goodness, my cable system finally resolved the HD broadcast problems it was having with Cosmos on FOX.

While there was still the usual jab at Creationists here, this episode took on another target, using Clair Patterson's battle with the oil industry as an allegory for the current political struggle over climate change. I found myself thinking how much more political this show is than the original -- but then I remembered that Sagan's Cosmos was intensely political in its way, addressing the perils of nuclear war and thus implicitly challenging the hawkish policies of the Reagan era. Maybe it's just that back then, there was one overriding issue to focus on, whereas now the issues are more diverse.

Anyway, I wasn't pleased when I recognized Seth MacFarlane as Patterson's voice actor; I've really grown to dislike hearing his voice, partly because I hate his shows and partly because I find him such a tiresomely one-note actor, able to do various voices but using the exact same delivery and cadence for all of them. But as the episode went on, I must admit he did show more subtlety and range in his characterization than he normally did -- perhaps because he was playing a more diffident character than his various roles on his animated shows. I wouldn't call it an excellent performance, but it was reasonably okay.

 

[Amaris]

I don't really see a jab at Creationists, other than that these are facts about the Earth's origins, and they don't like them. It's like people who insist the Earth is flat, and get disgruntled every time a spherical/ovoid Earth is shown onscreen. They're going to dislike it no matter what.

Quite frankly, if I didn't think it would waste precious time, I'd like to see jabs at Creationists. Right now, they're trying to fuck around with science, especially science education, and I want their fantasy neverland bullshit out of it.

 

[Caretaker]

Anyway, I wasn't pleased when I recognized Seth MacFarlane as Patterson's voice actor; I've really grown to dislike hearing his voice, partly because I hate his shows and partly because I find him such a tiresomely one-note actor, able to do various voices but using the exact same delivery and cadence for all of them.

FYI Patterson's voice wasn't provided by Seth MacFarlane. It was provided by Richard Gere.

 

[auntiehill]

..and he sounded NOTHING at all like MacFarlane.

 

[Timewalker]

The reveal about lead poisoning made me wonder why they did such a dumb introduction, implying Patterson was seeing some kind of germs everywhere, and later finding out he was imagining splotches of lead...

The rest of the episode was interesting, though.


BTW, original Cosmos' political agenda wasn't only about nuclear war/nuclear winter. There was a fair bit of environmentalism in that as well, in the episode about the whales and pollution. Our species certainly hasn't learned a damn thing in 30 years.

 

[Amaris]

We're the kind of species that can see we're destroying, can see the history of our destruction, and will still go on doing it anyway, because somehow things will work out and we'll be fine. In short, our species is filled with morons running blindly towards the edge of a cliff, and they're taking the rest of us with them.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Tonight's episode was an excellent example of the scientific method winning out over corporate interests, and also shows that not all corruption comes from the church. In this case, there are people with science degrees who can be bought, and it takes someone with a genuine interest in getting the facts and the data to everyone in order for such corruption to be exposed.

I typed out a Tweet last night during a commercial break, but then didn't post it because some people wouldn't have realized I was being saracastic. It ran something like:

"Remember, consumers and employees, the right of corporations to profit trumps your right to life and health #COSMOS"

The reveal about lead poisoning made me wonder why they did such a dumb introduction, implying Patterson was seeing some kind of germs everywhere, and later finding out he was imagining splotches of lead...

I thought Clare Patterson was experiencing some sort of phildickian reality collapse. Then, the commercial break where he's being tailed by shadowy people, I went, "Yep, he's in a phildickian nightmare! PKD was right!"

 

[Forbin]

I dunno, I thought the second half was a big waste of time. Learning how they determined the age of the earth was interesting and to the point of the show. Spending 1/2 hour on the politics of leaded gasoline was not what I want from this show. It was worth a mention, sure, before moving on. But all that time? Dull.

 

[Christopher]

I don't really see a jab at Creationists, other than that these are facts about the Earth's origins, and they don't like them.

Tyson began his discussion by talking about James Ussher's 17th-century calculation of the age of the Earth by finding a dateable event in the Bible (the death of Nebuchadnezzar) and extrapolating back from the number of generations since Adam, concluding that the Earth had been created on a certain precise day and time in 4004 BC. That calculation, and others based on similar assumptions and methods, are at the very heart of Young-Earth Creationist dogma, and the very reason they refuse to accept modern scientific evidence about Earth's prehistory. (Ever see Inherit the Wind?) So Tyson's entire discussion about the age of the Earth was a direct challenge to the very foundations of Creationism.

I dunno, I thought the second half was a big waste of time. Learning how they determined the age of the earth was interesting and to the point of the show. Spending 1/2 hour on the politics of leaded gasoline was not what I want from this show. It was worth a mention, sure, before moving on. But all that time? Dull.

The point of Cosmos has never been purely about abstract science. It's always been about what science means to our lives, including what it reveals about important political and social issues. What Carl Sagan did for the debate over nuclear arms, Tyson is doing for the debate over climate change, by using the Romans' and the oil companies' reckless disregard for the hazards of lead as an allegory for modern society's reckless disregard for the hazards of greenhouse gases.

And, as J. Allen said, it was about science as a process and as a social phenomenon, the ways it can be used and abused, the ways it impacts our lives. Surely teaching children that scientific thinking is directly relevant to our everyday lives, our health and safety, is even more important than teaching them how we calculated the age of the Earth. Knowing the facts and methods of science is meaningless if we don't teach children (and adults) why it matters.