View Full Version : Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
montanadave
03-04-14, 10:45
I know there were a few members expressing an interest in this reboot of Carl Sagan's highly-acclaimed Cosmos series when it surfaced in another thread a while back, so I thought I'd post up a reminder. The new series, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson will premiere this coming Sunday night on selected Fox and National Geo channels. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/science/space/a-successor-to-sagan-reboots-cosmos.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes)
For the real nerds, there's a live Q&A with the creators of the new series tonight online: http://www.cosmosontv.com/
I've got my recorder set. I'm looking forward to the "new" Cosmos and hope it lives up to the hype.
Sounds pretty interesting. If I only had cable/satellite...
I'll do the live Q&A, but they filmed that out here in NM, and all my non-science friends who worked on set thought it was great - which means I'll probably be bored to tears.
And THANK YOU. I can't think of a better host either.
SeriousStudent
03-04-14, 23:29
Dang, almost makes me wish I had television. This should be quite good.
Let me know when it comes out on DVD.
montanadave
03-09-14, 22:01
So? Anybody watch?
Ridgerunner665
03-09-14, 22:11
I did...I watched the original all those years ago too, and at the time I figured we would have walked on Mars by now....we really need to push on out further, I believe it will be worth the effort and expense.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Grand58742
03-09-14, 22:46
Watched it. Kind of seemed like the intended audience was for younger viewers. It was okay, but seemed to be almost broken down way too simple.
Maybe it was just me, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson seemed like he was talking to a kindergarten class during the whole thing.
To be honest the "through the worm hole" series is much better. More thought provoking and more technical.
montanadave
03-09-14, 22:50
Watched it. Kind of seemed like the intended audience was fr younger viewers. It was okay, but seemed to be almost broken down way too simple.
Maybe it was just me, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson seemed like he was talking to a kindergarten class during the whole thing.
I felt the same way. However, it was the introductory episode and the series is intended for a broad audience. I'm going to give it a few more episodes and see if it digs in a little deeper as Tyson focuses on more specific subject material.
I felt the same way. However, it was the introductory episode and the series is intended for a broad audience. I'm going to give it a few more episodes and see if it digs in a little deeper as Tyson focuses on more specific subject material.
That's what I'm hoping.
Grand58742
03-09-14, 22:59
I felt the same way. However, it was the introductory episode and the series is intended for a broad audience. I'm going to give it a few more episodes and see if it digs in a little deeper as Tyson focuses on more specific subject material.
Same here. I did notice he paid homage to Pluto. Nice gesture considering that bastard helped kill it lol
I almost hope it targets a younger audience. We need more kids staying interested in science.
The rants against the show on twitter and Facebook have been amusing as well.
I just have to ask one question, was there a Spaceship of the Imagination?
Ridgerunner665
03-10-14, 01:56
I just have to ask one question, was there a Spaceship of the Imagination?
Yes...
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
I found it rather meh. As a big fan of the original, I may be biased but it is what it is.
The Obama introduction put me off immediately. I don't remember Carter introducing the original. It muddles the whole the introduction by adding a political tint.
I didn't care for the animation very much. The very long drawn story about Giordano Bruno was off the mark. They may not have intended to paint the church as anti-science but that is how it looked to me; and I'm an atheist. Bruno didn't even engage in scientific pursuits. He was more a philosopher monk that told of visions and epiphanies rather than observations. This added nothing to the program.
I will watch a few more episodes to see how it evolves.
I found it rather meh. As a big fan of the original, I may be biased but it is what it is.
Kind of like people who always say the book is better, remakes suck, etc? :p
The Obama introduction put me off immediately. I don't remember Carter introducing the original. It muddles the whole the introduction by adding a political tint.
I think if it were a far right conservative instead, the message would've been much stronger. Then again, pushing education and science to some of his key demographics isn't a bad thing either.
Kind of like people who always say the book is better, remakes suck, etc? :p
Not really, no.
I think if it were a far right conservative instead, the message would've been much stronger. Then again, pushing education and science to some of his key demographics isn't a bad thing either.
I don't think any politician should have introduced it.
The Obama introduction put me off immediately.
I was really looking forward to this, my father was an avid astronomer. He spent much of his retirement years charting and studying. As soon as that introduction appeared I cancelled the dvr recording and flipped the channel.
I don't think any politician should have introduced it.
I can't stand the guy. However he is President. So in this case I feel it is actually something he should be doing. As I have said time and again, science is very important to the future of this country. The president should be helping to promote that.
It wasn't political, it was governmental.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 11:14
I can't stand the guy. However he is President. So in this case I feel it is actually something he should be doing. As I have said time and again, science is very important to the future of this country. The president should be helping to promote that.
It wasn't political, it was governmental.
This. Not everyone knows who Neil deGrasse Tyson is, but they know who Obama is. They were non-political remarks that were actually spot on for the most part.
Carter didn't introduce the original. I don't see a need for Obama to touch this one.
Carter didn't introduce the original. I don't see a need for Obama to touch this one.
Times are different now than they were when Carter was president. First off Obama has a strong interest in science and it has been one of his big pushes as President. Hell it is probably about the only thing that I agree with him on. Secondly during Carters time there wasn't such a strong effort against science education.
montanadave
03-10-14, 11:25
There's a strong push from this administration to promote more STEM majors in higher education. The president's comments simply reinforced that goal.
That said, there are obviously a lot of folks that RUN from anything that Obama touches so I think his promo spot was probably counter-productive.
Watched it. Kind of seemed like the intended audience was for younger viewers. It was okay, but seemed to be almost broken down way too simple.
Maybe it was just me, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson seemed like he was talking to a kindergarten class during the whole thing.
Same here. That was the beauty of Sagan was that he could simplify incredible ideas without making it seem like a 4th grade remedial science class. I remember my father and I both watching Cosmos on Nova when it first aired and we were both learning things.
Hope it improves. As someone else noted "Through the Wormhole" was an excellent series.
I know there were a few members expressing an interest in this reboot of Carl Sagan's highly-acclaimed Cosmos series when it surfaced in another thread a while back, so I thought I'd post up a reminder. The new series, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson will premiere this coming Sunday night on selected Fox and National Geo channels. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/science/space/a-successor-to-sagan-reboots-cosmos.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes)
For the real nerds, there's a live Q&A with the creators of the new series tonight online: http://www.cosmosontv.com/
I've got my recorder set. I'm looking forward to the "new" Cosmos and hope it lives up to the hype.
I'm there for sure.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 14:50
Hope it improves. As someone else noted "Through the Wormhole" was an excellent series.
I hadn't heard of it before this thread. So it's worth the time to track down for a semi-space junky like myself?
montanadave
03-10-14, 15:30
For those who missed it, I think it's being rebroadcast tonight on the National Geographic channel.
To clarify, that's Cosmos, not the Wormhole series.
TriviaMonster
03-10-14, 16:28
Its on Hulu if anyone uses that. I enjoyed it, and I just watched it on Hulu and it didn't have Barry in it. Or before it or what have you, I didn't get what you guys were even talking about.
Its a bit oversimplified, but still very entertaining. I hope it revives a dying interest for many people. Into the Universe with Hawking is also very fun and easy to grasp without being too dumbed down.
Take the first episode at face value, I'm guessing they will dig deeper in the coming shows.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
I hadn't heard of it before this thread. So it's worth the time to track down for a semi-space junky like myself?
Yes. History channel did some series called The Universe or something along those lines that ended up being way short of expectations. Through the Wormhole IS what that show should have been.
I may have found the problem....LINK (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f35fcb76-a855-11e3-8ce1-00144feab7de.html)
“I want to make this so entertaining and so flashy and so exciting that people who have no interest in science will watch just because it is a spectacle,” said Mr MacFarlane.
The original did not need to be a spectacle. I think this one is getting lost in the ambition.
“I want to make this so entertaining and so flashy and so exciting that people who have no interest in science will watch just because it is a spectacle,” said Mr MacFarlane.
Exactly what we do NOT need. Sagan made the science so damn interesting that you couldn't stop watching it because it was fascinating. He didn't need to turn it into Star Wars to get viewers then and we don't need to turn it into The Matrix / MiB now.
Exactly what we do NOT need. Sagan made the science so damn interesting that you couldn't stop watching it because it was fascinating. He didn't need to turn it into Star Wars to get viewers then and we don't need to turn it into The Matrix / MiB now.
Except unfortunately the intellectual caliber of people, especially young people, is not what it used to be so to that end eh.
Decent intro show but I'm hoping the maturity of the subject matter improves in subsequent episodes.
I thought Tyson's exposure to Sagan in his youth is an neat story though
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
I thought Tyson's exposure to Sagan in his youth is an neat story though
So far that was the most interesting thing to me. They did the standard history of the universe in a calendar year thing which I thought was done well enough to get through to most without dumbing down too much. But I hated the animation of the story of Giordano Bruno for example. And in addition to the crappy animation, they didn't quite get an accurate story of events.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist
Of course to be fair, Sagan over simplified a few things when it came to history as well.
I suppose I should not have really been surprised by the blatant ant-Catholic propaganda concerning Giordano Bruno, who was a complete narcissistic crackpot who practiced the occult, believed in magic, and was probably the spy for Queen Elizabeth I who's betrayal of Catholics in England led to the arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution, of many of them.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-fact-becomes-anti-catholic-fiction
I enjoyed the rest of it.
montanadave
03-11-14, 17:22
I suppose I should not have really been surprised by the blatant ant-Catholic propaganda concerning Giordano Bruno, who was a complete narcissistic crackpot who practiced the occult, believed in magic, and was probably the spy for Queen Elizabeth I who's betrayal of Catholics in England led to the arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution, of many of them.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-fact-becomes-anti-catholic-fiction
I enjoyed the rest of it.
I have to agree. The parallels between the depicted imprisonment, torture, trial, and execution of Bruno and traditional Passion of Christ were less than subtle and guaranteed to offend more than a few viewers.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-11-14, 17:23
I would've really enjoyed this show in 5th grade. I hope they increase the intellectual difficulty or I will pass. Its too bad, I was so excited for this show.
I would've really enjoyed this show in 5th grade. I hope they increase the intellectual difficulty or I will pass. Its too bad, I was so excited for this show.
I agree which is why I posted that through the wormhole with Morgan freeman is much better. I did enjoy how they showed the size of the universe, that little segment was well done.
I have to agree. The parallels between the depicted imprisonment, torture, trial, and execution of Bruno and traditional Passion of Christ were less than subtle and guaranteed to offend more than a few viewers.
And had nothing to do with science, or the cosmos, contributed nothing to the show, and I very much doubt Carl Sagan would have had anything whatsoever to do with. The problem for me with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is his apparent utter inability to in any way disguise the fact that he is completely taken with himself.
The problem for me with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is his apparent utter inability to in any way disguise the fact that he is completely taken with himself.
The more watch him, the more it seems he is trying to sell himself as the second coming of Carl Sagan.
k
The intellectual capacity is there, it hasn't been cultivated.
My worry from the start was that it would be at an elementary school level, and so far it has been, which is too bad.
I would've really enjoyed this show in 5th grade. I hope they increase the intellectual difficulty or I will pass. Its too bad, I was so excited for this show.
That was the beauty of the original series. I watched it at 13 and loved it and learned a great deal. I watched it again 20 years later when it came out on DVD and still loved it. Not an easy thing to do.
Any one catch the 2nd episode?
montanadave
03-17-14, 09:20
I did. And I thought it was decent. The subject was evolution so obviously some folks are going to grouse. Given this is akin to a televised survey course intended for a wide audience, it's building in the right direction.
I saw both episodes. I agree that the first was a little too simplistic, trying to cram too much into one hour, but what was discussed was discussed quite well. I particularly liked Dr Tyson's discussion of his first meeting with Dr Sagan. It added a personal touch that was nicely done. I missed the Obamanation in the beginning. No doubt that made the episode that much better for me.
At the time I saw the first episode, I didn't realize it was to be a series. I thought it was a one-time special (I don't watch that much TV, so I missed the ads).
The second episode was better. Did a good job explaining a complex subject, no doubt guaranteed to offend a segment of the population (such as those who were rooting for the Inquisition in episode 1). If you believe that Creation should be taught alongside Evolution in Science Class (rather than teaching all versions of Creation in a Theology Class, and leaving Science Class for scientific subjects), than the second episode was likely not for you.
I agree that there is too much reliance on gimmicks and flash. The subject is fascinating enough that one doesn't need to turn it into Disney meets Dr Who.
As for Dr Tyson seeming to view himself as the second coming of Dr Sagan, in my opinion he is. Not since Carl Sagan has anyone other than Neil Tyson been able to take a subject like Cosmology and the origins of the universe and convey both the wonder and the level of current knowledge in a way that simultaneously fascinates and educates.
As for Dr Tyson seeming to view himself as the second coming of Dr Sagan, in my opinion he is. Not since Carl Sagan has anyone other than Neil Tyson been able to take a subject like Cosmology and the origins of the universe and convey both the wonder and the level of current knowledge in a way that simultaneously fascinates and educates.
If that is actually the case, then it simply reflects poorly on us as a society. Carl Sagan never needed to come off as a self-important narcissistic coarse and vainglorious buffoon in order to educate and fascinate.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-space-survival-2014-3
OK. You don't think much of Neil Tyson, or at least you feel he is a little too self-absorbed.
I watched the link you provided. While I might agree he seems a little full of himself (if those snippits of intros were indicative of his real personality), but his explanation of how one might die in space was, again, interesting and informative.
Even the best comedian can overdo it. His ability to convey knowledge, in a subject where many, perhaps most have no knowledge, is still second to none. At least he is not dry.
OK. You don't think much of Neil Tyson, or at least you feel he is a little too self-absorbed.
I watched the link you provided. While I might agree he seems a little full of himself (if those snippits of intros were indicative of his real personality), but his explanation of how one might die in space was, again, interesting and informative.
Even the best comedian can overdo it. His ability to convey knowledge, in a subject where many, perhaps most have no knowledge, is still second to none. At least he is not dry.
But imagine how Carl Sagan would have answered the question. It would also have been interesting and informative, but without a hint of the self-important narcissistic coarse and vainglorious buffoonery. And can you imagine Sagan ending with "kiss your ass goodbye"? My point is that if you are right, then it is simply sad that in order to connect with young people, and cultivate an interest in the wonder of study of space, we have sunk to this level. Carl Sagan never felt he needed to act like a child in order to connect with children.
Grand58742
03-17-14, 14:46
Didn't think this deserved it's own thread, but this seemed interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/space/detection-of-waves-in-space-buttresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html
Reaching back across 13.8 billion years to the first sliver of cosmic time with telescopes at the South Pole, a team of astronomers led by John M. Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics detected ripples in the fabric of space-time — so-called gravitational waves — the signature of a universe being wrenched violently apart when it was roughly a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old. They are the long-sought smoking-gun evidence of inflation, proof, Dr. Kovac and his colleagues say, that Dr. Guth was correct.
Not exactly sure I understand everything behind this, but seems like scientists everywhere are excited. So now gravitational waves are no longer theoretical but have been proven?
Someone dumb this discovery down for me?
This explanation might help. http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-smithsonian-center-for-astrophysics-announce-discovery-2014-3
"They found these signatures of cosmic inflation are gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background radiation of our universe. Gravitational waves created by the Big Bang rippled through our infant universe during an explosive period of growth called inflation — when the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times, in less than the blink of an eye."
montanadave
03-17-14, 20:24
More on the gravitational waves discovery from Caltech: http://www.caltech.edu/content/first-direct-evidence-inflation-and-primordial-gravitational-waves
Here's the research paper: http://bicepkeck.org/b2_respap_arxiv_v1.pdf
I'm still checking their math, but so far, it looks pretty good. :lol:
How we in the Church see (and have always seen) the relationship with scientific investigation of the natural world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd3Y1tCwlBo&list=UUcMjLgeWNwqL2LBGS-iPb1A
Proof we are not alone! :cool:
Someone has some good CGI skills:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BhJL1O7gmw
OK. You don't think much of Neil Tyson, or at least you feel he is a little too self-absorbed.
I watched the link you provided. While I might agree he seems a little full of himself (if those snippits of intros were indicative of his real personality), but his explanation of how one might die in space was, again, interesting and informative.
Even the best comedian can overdo it. His ability to convey knowledge, in a subject where many, perhaps most have no knowledge, is still second to none. At least he is not dry.
I actually like Tyson and think he is the obvious choice for a remake of Cosmos. But even I am a little put off by how much he inserts himself into the stories. Sagan presented himself as an observer more than a participant. In the evolution of dogs segment, Tyson really didn't need to be the one driving off the wolves. Sure it was better than another cartoon but he should limit himself to flying around in the "ship of imagination" and explaining things.
Or to use a simple mathematical equation: Science > Neil Tyson
I like the new series. It isn't really a reboot, since they're aim was to not replace Sagan (one of my all time nerd heroes!) but continue his idea of making science mainstream and accessible. Kind of a launchpad to get 'Muricans back into leading in science and techonology advancements for the world.
As for the video:
I see Barron's point, but still, Bruno was burnt at the stake.
Other scientists who dared step one foot out of the bounds of Catholic idea of how everything worked were pulled in front of the Roman Inquisition and summarily judged upon, like Galileo:
"Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.
Proposition to be assessed:
(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.
Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.
(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith.
Petrus Lombardus, Archbishop of Armagh.
Fra Hyacintus Petronius, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace.
Fra Raphael Riphoz, Master of Theology and Vicar-General of the Domincan Order.
Fra Michelangelo Segizzi, Master of Sacred Theology and Commissary of the Holy Office.
Fra Hieronimus de Casalimaiori, Consultant to the Holy Office.
Fra Thomas de Lemos.
Fra Gregorius Nunnius Coronel.
Benedictus Justinianus, Society of Jesus.
Father Raphael Rastellius, Clerk Regular, Doctor of Theology.
Father Michael of Naples, of the Cassinese Congregation.
Fra Iacobus Tintus, assistant of the Most Reverend Father Commissary of the Holy Office."
(That is a long list of authority figures from many levels of the church.)
I'm sorry, but modern apologies for decisions like the one example above, a 1500 year old erroneous world view, do not clear the Catholic church of their sins against free thought and free thinkers.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-25-14, 22:39
This most recent episode felt like it was all a cartoon shown in a 3rd grade classroom. I may be done with this show.
This most recent episode felt like it was all a cartoon shown in a 3rd grade classroom. I may be done with this show.
I was done 5 minutes into episode two. Literally all I got from the show is that CGI has come a long way; and that I desperately want to go back to the Stapp Museum in Alamogordo.
As for the video:
I see Barron's point, but still, Bruno was burnt at the stake.
But not for reasons that had anything to do with science, which was the claim in the 1st episode of the series. That is what needs to be remembered.
By accounts Bruno was a narcissistic douche and full-blown nutbird who was a pantheist and believed in and "practiced" magic, and who probably was responsible for getting many innocent people killed just because they were Catholic. So your "man of science" was a many different gods worshipping pantheist who believed in magic and had the blood of innocent people on his hands. But if you are really just that hellbent on holding up some pantheist magician as some kind of "martyr" for your side, then by all means, you are welcome to him.
Other scientists who dared step one foot out of the bounds of Catholic idea of how everything worked were pulled in front of the Roman Inquisition and summarily judged upon, like Galileo:
Sorry, but that is simply total BS and ignorant puerile propoganda.
A few facts about the Galileo affair that anti-christians always conveniently fail to mention.
When Galileo went to tell them about his theory, (which was not new) and asked for the permission to teach it to his students, the supposedly anti-scientific Catholic Church, under hooded cloaks, with evil, squinting, beady eyes, replied "Sure, sounds interesting, go for it."
When said he wanted to teach it as an established scientific fact he was asked. "Can you actually prove it?" To which he said "no". So the Church told him to just teach it as a theory. (His theory, as we all know now was in any case half wrong.) Again, there was no problem whatsoever with him teaching his theory. None.
Forgetting for a moment that the entire university system, with degrees and diplomas, etc, was invented by the Catholic Church, I fail to see how 'Go ahead and teach your theory as much as you like, but only say it is a theory until you can actually prove it scientifically, because all these other astronomers over here don't agree and also make a good case for their view.' is in any way "against science".
Galileo however was not happy with the "Your theory sounds great, go ahead and teach it all you want, but teach it only as a theory until you can actually prove it scientifically" answer, and went about insulting a bunch of Church authorities who were even more prideful, arrogant, and stubborn, than he was. Bad idea. So they tried and convicted him, and for his punishment sent him to live in a villa in Tuscany. I have visited Tuscany. Please let me know which people in the Church I need to publicly insult so that they will send me to live in a villa there.
This most recent episode felt like it was all a cartoon shown in a 3rd grade classroom. I may be done with this show.
I just finished it last night. Have to agree and I'm very disappointed. Worst of all was the "Inside Cosmos" tidbit where the creators of this travesty take a moment to pat themselves on the back and talk about how brilliant they are for using cartoons rather than historical reenactments.
To the contrary reenactments in the original like Keplar's frustration in creating a model gave you a sense of time, place and the man. It was far superior to any animation. I'm going to see the show through because I've invested this much time. I won't be buying the DVD.
On the bright side, Criterion just released "A Brief History of Time" on DVD.
Total BS and ignorant puerile propoganda.
A few facts about the Galileo affair that anti-christians always conveniently fail to mention.
When Galileo went to tell them about his theory, (which was not new) and asked for the permission to teach it to his students, the supposedly anti-scientific Catholic Church, under hooded cloaks, with evil, squinting, beady eyes, replied "Sure, sounds interesting, go for it."
When said he wanted to teach it as an established scientific fact he was asked. "Can you actually prove it?" To which he said "no". So the Church told him to just teach it as a theory. (His theory, as we all know now was in any case half wrong.) Again, there was no problem whatsoever with him teaching his theory. None.
Forgetting for a moment that the entire university system, with degrees and diplomas, etc, was invented by the Catholic Church, I fail to see how "Go ahead and teach your theory as much as you like, but only say it is a theory until you can actually prove it scientifically, because all these other astronomers over here don't agree and also make a good case for their view." is in any "anti-scientific".
Galileo however was not happy with the "Your theory sounds great, go ahead and teach it all you want, but teach it only as a theory until you can actually prove it scientifically" answer, and went about insulting a bunch of Church authorities who were even more prideful, arrogant, and stubborn, than he was. Bad idea. So they tried and convicted him, and for his punishment sent him to live in a villa in Tuscany. I have visited Tuscany. Please let me know which people in the Church I need to publicly insult so that they will send me to live in a villa there.
Not quite...
By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret scripture seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[55] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[56]
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
…to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[57]
Sources:
Langford (1992), pp. 56–57
Finocchiaro, Maurice. "History of Astronomy". West Chester University. ESS 362 / 562. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
Heilbron (2010), p. 218
In September 1632, Galileo was ordered to come to Rome to stand trial. He finally arrived in February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.[63] The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on June 22. It was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[64]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[65] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[66]
Sources:
Sharratt (1994, pp. 171–75); Heilbron (2010, pp. 308–17); Gingerich (1992, pp. 117–18).
Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–93). Finocchiaro's translation of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo is available on-line. "Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical. The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had been subject to only the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith" (Fantoli, 2005, p. 140; Heilbron, 2005, pp. 282–84).
Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 38, 291, 306). Finocchiaro's translation of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo is available on-line.
Drake (1978, p. 367), Sharratt (1994, p. 184), Favaro(1905, 16:209, 230) (Italian). See Galileo affair for further details.
As for your "sunny days in a villa" sentence. House arrest is house arrest, you are not a free man. If it was done to you for expressing your beliefs I doubt you'd be so rosy about it. His book was BANNED.
In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary - it revolved around the sun.
"Not quite" doesn't actually inform as to what you are objecting.
Did the Church give us the university, those centres of learning and education? Yes.
Was Galileo's theory about the sun being the center of the universe wrong? Yes.
Was he originally given permission to teach his theory? Yes.
Was he told that he could only teach his theory as a theory until he could prove it scientifically? Yes.
Did he strongly object to this? Yes.
Did he then go on to write a book that many higher-ups in the Church considered to be a deliberate personal attack against them? Yes.
Did they then strike back? Yes.
So to which of those are you saying "not quite"?
In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary - it revolved around the sun.
Technically, he was half wrong, the moon does not revolve around the earth, and the earth does not revolve around the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy)
"Not quite" doesn't actually inform as to what you are objecting.
Did the Church give us the university, those centres of learning and education? Yes.
Was Galileo's theory about the sun being the center of the universe wrong? Yes.
Was he originally given permission to teach his theory? Yes.
Was he told that he could only teach his theory as a theory until he could prove it scientifically? Yes.
Did he strongly object to this? Yes.
Did he then go on to write a book that many higher-ups in the Church considered to be a deliberate personal attack against them? Yes.
Did they then strike back? Yes.
So to which of those are you saying "not quite"?
Technically, he was half wrong, the moon does not revolve around the earth, and the earth does not revolve around the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy)
Was Galileo's theory about the sun being the center of the universe wrong? Yes.
It was more correct than the Earth being the center of the universe. More importantly he proposed the planets revolve around the sun rather than the sun revolves around the Earth. And in that part he was absolutely correct and the church was wrong.
Was he told that he could only teach his theory as a theory until he could prove it scientifically? Yes.
Not quite.
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
…to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo
But mostly I objected to the characterization of his "house arrest" as some kind of paradise and you omitted a key fact that his book was banned.
Basically just as you have criticized the very one sided "Evil church persecuted Galileo for his discovery" details of events typically presented, you are just as guilty of presenting an equally biased version of events that presents events in a less than accurate way that seems to suggest the church was the driving force of scientific discovery at the time and you omitted a few key details.
Now certainly some of the points you raised are actually true and they are usually conveniently left out in order to criticize the church and celebrate Galileo. But the main points remain, that Galileo discovered the Earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around (an idea first suggested by Copernicus), and a dogmatic theocracy suppressed the discovery and banned his book.
That anyone would defend any aspect of the Inquisition at all is honestly kinda amazing.
I am amazed by a few things in this thread.
1: The fact that some people still don't understand what a Scientific Theory is and that it isn't the same as a theory you have about who shot Kennedy.
2: The unbalanced comparisons between this Cosmos and the original. I loved the original. I grew up on it. I own it on DVD and re-watch it often. It is cheesy and almost silly in parts. I am reminded of people who dislike Star Trek TNG because it is different from TOS and refuse to even see it for what it is. Yes the new show relies on more CGI. But it is made for today, not 1980. It's goal is to get younger people interested in science.
3: Comparisons between Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan. They are different men with different styles. I personally Prefer Sagans style. But that doesn't mean I dismiss Degrasse's. And frankly he is Sagans heir apparent. He has the ability to appeal to a wide group of people and a delivery method that works.
4: The defense of the Inquisition because thinkers like Galileo didn't do what they told them to do. I am at a complete and total loss on this one. It is like blaming the victim of a mugging for being shot because he didn't turn over his wallet fast enough to the criminal.
It was more correct than the Earth being the center of the universe. More importantly he proposed the planets revolve around the sun rather than the sun revolves around the Earth. And in that part he was absolutely correct and the church was wrong.
You seem to being going to pains to not mention that one of the reasons the Church believed what she did was because other astronomers said that is what was happening. The Church agreeing with one group of scientists, and not agreeing with another, is not the Church being "against science".
Not quite.
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions.
Sorry, but the historical fact is that he was first given permission to teach his theory.
But mostly I objected to the characterization of his "house arrest" as some kind of paradise and you omitted a key fact that his book was banned.
Basically just as you have criticized the very one sided "Evil church persecuted Galileo for his discovery" details of events typically presented, you are just as guilty of presenting an equally biased version of events that presents events in a less than accurate way that seems to suggest the church was the driving force of scientific discovery
To a very large degree, it was. And neither your obvious personal bias nor your entrenched prejudice against the Church can alter that historical fact.
http://www.academia.edu/3313369/There_was_nothing_dark_about_the_Dark_Ages_The_Medieval_Origins_of_Science
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm
That anyone would defend any aspect of the Inquisition at all is honestly kinda amazing.
It is only "kinda amazing" to those completely ignorant of the history of the Catholic Inquisition.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition
4: The defense of the Inquisition because thinkers like Galileo didn't do what they told them to do. I am at a complete and total loss on this one. It is like blaming the victim of a mugging for being shot because he didn't turn over his wallet fast enough to the criminal.
I am absolutely certain that if I were to ask you 50 random questions about the Catholic Inquisition, you would fail to get even one correct.
montanadave
03-26-14, 19:36
An enlightening essay on how religious, spiritual, and mythical beliefs can inform scientific inquiry and how the lines between one and the other are sometimes blurred: http://nautil.us/issue/11/light/why-physicists-make-up-stories-in-the-dark
A brief excerpt:
This move beyond the visible has become a fundamental part of science’s narrative. But it’s a more complicated shift than we often appreciate. Making sense of what is unseen—of what lies “beyond the light”—has a much longer history in human experience. Before science had the means to explore that realm, we had to make do with stories that became enshrined in myth and folklore. Those stories aren’t banished as science advances; they are simply reinvented. Scientists working at the forefront of the invisible will always be confronted with gaps in knowledge, understanding, and experimental capability. In the face of those limits, they draw unconsciously on the imagery of the old stories. This is a necessary part of science, and these stories can sometimes suggest genuinely productive scientific ideas. But the danger is that we will start to believe them at face value, mistaking them for theories.
SeriousStudent
03-26-14, 21:36
......
On the bright side, Criterion just released "A Brief History of Time" on DVD.
Ordered - thanks.
Dude, you need to do me a favor and just make your Amazon wish list public. It would save me search time.
On second thought, make the non-porn part of the list public.
You seem to being going to pains to not mention that one of the reasons the Church believed what she did was because other astronomers said that is what was happening. The Church agreeing with one group of scientists, and not agreeing with another, is not the Church being "against science".
And you seem to be going to pains to not recognize that there were Biblical reasons for believing the Earth was the center of creation.
Sorry, but the historical fact is that he was first given permission to teach his theory.
And then he was ORDERED not to. So that fact that it was temporarily "ok" doesn't make it "ok."
To a very large degree, it was. And neither your obvious personal bias nor your entrenched prejudice against the Church can alter that historical fact.
http://www.academia.edu/3313369/There_was_nothing_dark_about_the_Dark_Ages_The_Medieval_Origins_of_Science
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm
Good god, I think I'm being terribly impartial. I actually don't care about the church at all so that doesn't leave much room for bias any more than I care about people who believe in martians. I just don't agree with them. I fully recognize the bias many have against the church in the Galileo matter and how many facts are conveniently over looked and stated as much. I'm just pointing out where you are doing much of the same thing.
And to suggest "house arrest" and having your scientific discoveries banned was "not so bad" really tells me we have nothing further to discuss regarding this matter.
It is only "kinda amazing" to those completely ignorant of the history of the Catholic Inquisition.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition
LOL. Ok, the Inquisition was a good thing. Got it. Now I remember why I have you on ignore. Have happy day.
Saw Dr. Tyson speak tonight. It was a great talk and harbored ill omens on the future of America as a leader in the scientific world. If he came across as egotistical in the show, he was just the opposite in his talk.
And you seem to be going to pains to not recognize that there were Biblical reasons for believing the Earth was the center of creation.
My assertion is that because other astronomers said that was the case, and there seemed to be Biblical reasons for accepting what other astronomers, before, during, and after the time of Galileo, held as true, and that when Galileo said point blank that he could not actually prove his theory, it was not wrong for the Church to ask him to teach it only as a theory, and not as an established scientific fact.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2008/galileo-science-and-the-smirking-chimp
And then he was ORDERED not to.
After many years. And he was put on trial for teaching an unproven theory as fact when he was given permission to only teach it as a theory until he could prove it.
http://takimag.com/article/the_galileo_myth/print
Good god, I think I'm being terribly impartial. I actually don't care about the church at all so that doesn't leave much room for bias any more than I care about people who believe in martians.
So your claim is that holding the Church in the same dismissive derision you hold those who believe in martians in no way betrays any personal bias or entrenched prejudice. :rolleyes:
LOL. Ok, the Inquisition was a good thing. Got it. Now I remember why I have you on ignore. Have happy day.
Again, it is patently obvious that you have not actually studied the subject. Apparently having your preconceived biases and prejudices challenged with the historical record isn't something with which you are comfortable.
The Galileo Affair
The astronomer's beligerence
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be adduced.
Such proof, however, was not forthcoming. Galileo's belligerence probably had much to do with the fact that he knew there was no direct proof of heliocentrism. He could not even answer the strongest argument against it, which was advanced by Aristotle. If the earth did orbit the sun, the philosopher wrote, then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection, and it was not answered until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61 Cygni.
Galileo's other problem was that he insisted, despite the discoveries of Kepler, that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles. The Jesuit astronomers could plainly see that this was untenable. Galileo nonetheless launched his campaign with a series of pamphlets and letters which were circulated all over Europe. Along the way, he picked fights with a number of Churchmen on peripheral issues which helped to stack the deck against him. And, despite the warnings of his friends in Rome, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
I'm sorry but no amount of lawyering is going to clear the church of the Inquisition.
Pope JP II issued a former apology in 1992 for how the church dealt with Galileo and other scientists, which is an off-hand way of admitting that the Inquisition and Church leadership was dead wrong. (Somehow I doubt all the thousands of women, girls, and critical thinkers in the grave because of the Inquisition are satisfied with the apology.)
"The Wonders of the Universe" from the BBC is also a great series, and so is A Brief History of Time!
Saw Dr. Tyson speak tonight. It was a great talk and harbored ill omens on the future of America as a leader in the scientific world. If he came across as egotistical in the show, he was just the opposite in his talk.
I think that in the show he may come off as egotistical to some people, but I think that's inaccurate, it's an authoritative method of describing very complex explanations to viewers who are often more interested in where Miley Cyrus stuck her tongue yesterday.
I am amazed by a few things in this thread.
1: The fact that some people still don't understand what a Scientific Theory is and that it isn't the same as a theory you have about who shot Kennedy.
2: The unbalanced comparisons between this Cosmos and the original. I loved the original. I grew up on it. I own it on DVD and re-watch it often. It is cheesy and almost silly in parts. I am reminded of people who dislike Star Trek TNG because it is different from TOS and refuse to even see it for what it is. Yes the new show relies on more CGI. But it is made for today, not 1980. It's goal is to get younger people interested in science.
3: Comparisons between Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan. They are different men with different styles. I personally Prefer Sagans style. But that doesn't mean I dismiss Degrasse's. And frankly he is Sagans heir apparent. He has the ability to appeal to a wide group of people and a delivery method that works.
4: The defense of the Inquisition because thinkers like Galileo didn't do what they told them to do. I am at a complete and total loss on this one. It is like blaming the victim of a mugging for being shot because he didn't turn over his wallet fast enough to the criminal.
^ agree
The makers have said that this Cosmos is not supposed to be a documentary, but more like an entertaining and informative way to convey recent scientific findings and update anything from the old Cosmos (to a wide range of audience).
I didn't like the cartoon idea to demonstrate some parts of history of how knowledge evolved, but, comparing it to the original live action, I don't really mind them at all. I think the Newton and Haley (most recent episode) one was pretty good and lets the viewer in on the most important aspects of their discoveries.
I think that you have to view the show within its own (appropriate) context.
I'm sorry but no amount of lawyering is going to clear the church of the Inquisition.
Pope JP II issued a former apology in 1992 for how the church dealt with Galileo and other scientists, which is an off-hand way of admitting that the Inquisition and Church leadership was dead wrong. (Somehow I doubt all the thousands of women, girls, and critical thinkers in the grave because of the Inquisition are satisfied with the apology.)
I rather did not expect that anyone who holds up a many gods worshipping pantheist believer and partaker in magic as some sort of personal hero and a champion of 'science and critical thinking' to actually take his own beliefs seriously enough to critically investigate them academically. I would even lay odds that you have never read the letter from Pope John Paul II.
montanadave
03-27-14, 13:25
And Newton was an alchemist.
What's your point?
So your claim is that holding the Church in the same dismissive derision you hold those who believe in martians in no way betrays any personal bias or entrenched prejudice. :rolleyes:
You misunderstood my point completely. I'd explain it again but your bias will prevent you from reading it in the way intended. So I simply won't bother.
Again, it is patently obvious that you have not actually studied the subject. Apparently having your preconceived biases and prejudices challenged with the historical record isn't something with which you are comfortable.
No, I'm there. The Inquisition was a great thing. Got it. I'm extremely comfortable.
Have a terribly happy day.
No, I'm there. The Inquisition was a great thing. Got it. I'm extremely comfortable.
I imagine that in oder to get so "extremely comfortable" with yourself, you rather have to pretend that is what I posted.
And here I would have thought that leaving the facts out of the discussion as your M.O. would have bored even you by now.
I imagine that in oder to get so "extremely comfortable" with yourself, you rather have to pretend that is what I posted.
And here I would have thought that leaving the facts out of the discussion as your M.O. would have bored even you by now.
You just aren't getting it. I think the Inquisition was great. I wish we had one now, in this country. I wish I could be put under house arrest and have my life's work banned. It sounds awesome. I thought it was bad, but then you explained how great it was.
You just aren't getting it. I think the Inquisition was great. I wish we had one now, in this country. I wish I could be put under house arrest and have my life's work banned. It sounds awesome. I thought it was bad, but then you explained how great it was.
Well in my defence, there really isn't anything actually 'to get' in your posts. Perhaps you could do the kindness of adding even a little substance to them.
Well in my defence, there really isn't anything actually 'to get' in your posts. Perhaps you could do the kindness of adding even a little substance to them.
If one "cannot see" then it is hardly surprising you have come to the conclusion my posts lack substance.
And now that we are back at our regular impasse, I shall resume ignoring your posts.
If one "cannot see" then it is hardly surprising you have come to the conclusion my posts lack substance.
And now that we are back at our regular impasse, I shall resume ignoring your posts.
If you have a way a person can see what isn't there, I'm all ears, well, so to speak.
SeriousStudent
03-27-14, 21:29
And now that everybody is happily ignoring each other, let's talk about a TV show.
And now that everybody is happily ignoring each other, let's talk about a TV show.
I would respond but I am ignoring you... Wait what? :D
Hey SteyrAUG,
It's hard to be an ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
I love this. I may have to steal it (or at least borrow it).
My God tonight was the worse episode yet.
The usage of animation is destroying the show. I can't believe rather than demonstrate things like "aperture obscura" and show actual examples they depicted it with a freaking cartoon.
For those wondering what I'm talking about...
http://jhouse78.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/camera-obscura-and-optical-experiments/
Also the idea that animation is going to bring in people who would not otherwise be interested in the show and then actually understand that part about invisible bands of light, protons, electrons and introduction to quantum mechanics is laughable.
So far all they have done is take a subject that I'm very interested in and package it in a show that I have a great deal of difficulty watching because of the childish animation and CGIgasms creators had all over the program.
My God tonight was the worse episode yet.
The usage of animation is destroying the show. I can't believe rather than demonstrate things like "aperture obscura" and show actual examples they depicted it with a freaking cartoon.
For those wondering what I'm talking about...
http://jhouse78.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/camera-obscura-and-optical-experiments/
Also the idea that animation is going to bring in people who would not otherwise be interested in the show and then actually understand that part about invisible bands of light, protons, electrons and introduction to quantum mechanics is laughable.
So far all they have done is take a subject that I'm very interested in and package it in a show that I have a great deal of difficulty watching because of the childish animation and CGIgasms creators had all over the program.
Finally got around to watching a few episodes. For the right audience, it's a good introduction those topics. For the better informed, it's very basic stuff. If it gets new/more people int being interested in science, cosmology, etc, all good, but it won't be on my watch list. I thought Through The Worm whole often ruins a show with the goofy 2d grade animation I guess designed to appeal to kids. Cheesy CGI can be fun, but the cartoon stuff really turns me off.
I stopped watching it after the 2nd episode.
Having seen the first, comparisons are unavoidable. Sagan was able to speak and explain concepts in a way that most people could understand without the oversimplification. Sure they used the best graphics they could in 1980 but they tried to make it as realistic as possible. The use of animation that is much more like anime than an accurate depiction of events is distracting.
montanadave
04-08-14, 10:10
So has anybody seen any surveys, polls, etc. to indicate how the show is being received by a younger demographic, say grade school age or tweens? And it's not an impartial opinion if you're sitting with your kid saying, "This show sucks." :)
So has anybody seen any surveys, polls, etc. to indicate how the show is being received by a younger demographic, say grade school age or tweens? And it's not an impartial opinion if you're sitting with your kid saying, "This show sucks." :)
My concern isn't if tweens are watching it or not, my concern is if they are actually learning anything. In 1968 thousands of people watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" stoned for a visually stimulating high, it doesn't mean any of them gained any meaningful insights into the complexities of space exploration, the dangers of artificial intelligence or the meaning of life.
Similarly I don't think anyone has a fuller understanding, or even a sparked interest, in the nature of protons and electrons from last nights cartoon. With the aperture obscura story they had an opportunity to build a tent and simply recreate the light show. That potentially would have driven hundreds of kids to attempt to repeat the experiment and actually learn something about the nature of light. By using a medium of animation, the effect was grossly over dramatized and anyone who tries it will see something quite different, probably assume they did something wrong, and that will likely be the end of their interest in such experiments.
Watching Cosmos, followed by "The Star Hustler" aka Jack Horkheimer, would actually make me break out my telescope to attempt to repeat the things I had such seen in the early 80s.
Grand58742
04-08-14, 14:00
I think I've given it about as many chances as I'm comfortable with and it's not really getting better.
Sad state of affairs when I got bored enough to flip the channel to Duck Dynasty instead last night.
Watched episode 2 last night and found the Clair Patterson Lead research interesting.... beyond the fact that shooters can be exposed to lead more than non shooters.....
Are our current day psuedo scientists who massage data to promote nonsense like man made climate change discrediting future Clair Pattersons?
I knew and mentioned some issues with the history being presented so I wanted to look into it some more. During a search I found the following which sums it up much better than I can: LINK (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got.html)
I knew and mentioned some issues with the history being presented so I wanted to look into it some more. During a search I found the following which sums it up much better than I can: LINK (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got.html)
Thanks for the link. Even more historical detail than I had previously known. Since I walked past that stature of Bruno in the Campo di Fiori in Rome almost daily for 5 years, I thought I should learn both the actual history of what happened, and the unhistorical propaganda, which was again unfortunately regurgitated by the reboot of "Cosmos".
"But if they wanted to be truly accurate they should have detailed or even merely acknowledged Bruno's debt to Nicholas of Cusa, who expounded on a non-finite cosmos without a centre 109 years before Bruno was even born. Here is Cusanus on the subject in his book De docta ignorantia :
"The universe has no circumference, for if it had a centre and a circumference there would be some and some thing beyond the world, suppositions which are wholly lacking in truth. Since, therefore, it is impossible that the universe should be enclosed within a corporeal centre and corporeal boundary, it is not within our power to understand the universe, whose centre and circumference are God. And though the universe cannot be infinite, nevertheless it cannot be conceived as finite since there are no limits within which it could be confined."
That's the insight that the Bruno cartoon attributes solely to Bruno. So why not attribute it to "the divine Cusanus"? Well, that would ruin the whole parable. Because far from being kicked around by grim-looking Disney villains imprisoned and burned at the stake, Cusanus was revered and actually made a cardinal. So that doesn't lend itself very well to a moral fable about free-thinking geniuses being oppressed by dogmatic theocrats.
The cartoon then goes on to depict brave Bruno lecturing at Oxford, with grumpy and aristocratic-sounding scholars there objecting to his espousal of Copernicanism and eventually throwing fruit at him and driving him away. Again, the reality wasn't quite as worthy. There is zero record of any objection to heliocentrism and the problem the Oxford scholars had with Bruno was actually his plagiarism of another scholar's work. But, again, that doesn't lend itself to a fable about a pure and persecuted freethinker."
montanadave
04-22-14, 18:38
I knew and mentioned some issues with the history being presented so I wanted to look into it some more. During a search I found the following which sums it up much better than I can: LINK (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got.html)
Well, you cost me a good portion of my afternoon. First reading the blog post, then reading the original review, then the rebuttal, then a couple of other blog posts, then a TED lecture, then . . . well, you get the idea.
Good stuff. Thanks for the link. I think.
What kind of stuff did you find that was worth reading? Do you mind sharing the links?
montanadave
04-23-14, 08:34
What kind of stuff did you find that was worth reading? Do you mind sharing the links?
Well, I started with O'Neil's piece on Bruno you linked above, then began looking at some of his other blog posts. One that caught my eye was his discussion about a book by a fellow asserting that the historical Jesus was simply a myth, which O'Neill characterized as total hogwash (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014_01_01_archive.html). At first blush, this seems like an unusual position for an atheist like O'Neill to take but his assertion is merely that those claiming that Jesus was, in fact, not a real historical figure are basing their claims on a lot of faulty reasoning and selective interpretation of both biblical and historical documents. Anyway, that piece was actually a rebuttal to the author's response to O'Neill's original review of the book, so I ended up reading my way back through the whole sequence.
Then I found another book review O'Neill had written on Alain de Botton's book Religion for Atheists, which I had read sometime back (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/religion-for-atheists-non-believers.html). This led me to watching a couple of de Botton's TED talks.
Nothing really earth-shattering. I'm just a person that can kind of disappear down the rabbit hole when reading different authors, different ideas, different interpretations. I really should have been a research librarian. I can get lost in the stacks for hours or, in this case, the digital stacks.
One that caught my eye was his discussion about a book by a fellow asserting that the historical Jesus was simply a myth, which O'Neill characterized as total hogwash.
I read that as well and found it very fascinating. It's a great read. The explanation of Josephus' writing and being able to identify the original text from the later interloper added text is fascinating. I have not encountered that before.
I, also, enjoyed his entries on the movie Agora and Hypatia. He touches on how Sagan misrepresented her in the original Cosmos but with less emphasis than Bruno received in the new Cosmos. It is interesting how professional scientist erroneously hold up some of these individuals on religious like pedestals; almost like saints of science.
Writing about Hypatia, he mentions in 2009 (well before the new Cosmos) the problem of Bruno being held as a martyr of science..... LINK (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html)
History vs the Myths. And Movies.
Unfortunately for those who cling to the discredited "conflict thesis" of science and religion perpetually at odds, the history of science actually has very few genuine martyrs at the hands of religious bigots. The fact that a mystic and kook like Giordano Bruno gets dressed up as a free-thinking scientist shows how thin on the ground such martyrs are, though usually those who like to invoke these martyrs can fall back on citing "scientists burned by the Medieval Inquistion", despite the fact this never actually happened. Most people know nothing about the Middle Ages, so this kind of vague hand-waving is usually pretty safe.
Unlike Giordano Bruno, Hypatia was a genuine scientist and, as a woman, was certainly remarkable for her time (though the fact that another female and pagan scientist, Aedisia, practised science in Alexandria unmolested and with high renown a generation later shows she was far from unique). But Hypatia was no martyr for science and science had absolutely zero to do with her murder. Exactly how much of the genuine, purely political background to her death Amenabar puts in his movie remains to be seen. It's hoped that, unlike Sagan and many others, the whole political background to the murder won't simply be ignored and her killing won't be painted as a purely anti-intellectual act of ignorant rage against her science and scholarship.
I am not familiar with Alain de Botton so will look into that next.
Thanks for the leads.
So I just suffered through "Sisters of the Sun." Given the subject matter it should have been one of the more interesting episodes to me. Sadly there was enough blatant agenda, artistic license and disproportionate emphasis that it bordered on scientific mythology. There were points where the volume of deliberate misrepresentation had me wondering about some basic scientific foundations and were I not aware of their source and how they were arrived at I'd have to question and explore a great many things.
At some point we got past the questionable history cartoons and into some actual science. It has become painfully obvious that as much as I admire Tyson he simply cannot relate information with the same easy grace as Carl Sagan, either that or the writers for the show are simply horrible or a combination of both.
There was also quite a bit of "assumption" mixed into the facts where Sagan used to use "wonder." The last episode prior to this wasn't as bad as the others so I've been sticking it out. This most recent episode was profoundly disappointing.
Watched a few episodes. I didn't really like them for many of the reason listed here, mainly over simplistic.
Also, Tyson seems to be barely hiding left leaning politics. A lot of comments with collectivist and pro big government undertones.
So I just suffered through "Sisters of the Sun." Given the subject matter it should have been one of the more interesting episodes to me. Sadly there was enough blatant agenda, artistic license and disproportionate emphasis that it bordered on scientific mythology. There were points where the volume of deliberate misrepresentation had me wondering about some basic scientific foundations and were I not aware of their source and how they were arrived at I'd have to question and explore a great many things.
Do you mind elaborating a little on the disproportionate emphasis and deliberate misrepresentation?
It seems many people are buying the show at face value in spite of the readily available truth.....LINK (http://sciencefiction.com/2014/04/28/tv-review-cosmos-spacetime-odyssey/) to enthusiastic review...
The episode also went out of its way to comment on the fact that women who make these discoveries are often relegated to a dusty backroom where they are quickly forgotten. Or, they undermine their own ground-breaking theses because it’s a man’s world. It was a message to the girls watching ‘Cosmos’, as if to say, “Hey, you’re a part of this conversation and you always were.”
Another favorable review (LINK (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?148749-Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey/page5)) describing the women as, "incredible women who challenged conventional wisdom and uncovered the real-life story of the stars."
And the episode reviewed by women: LINK (http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/04/this-episode-of-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-was-for-the-ladies/361297/)
Danielle: Agreed; I’m a little bit conflicted about this episode. I’m happy to learn about these women and see their accomplishments acknowledged, but I wish that we’d gotten a fuller picture of what it was like for women scientists at the time. Tyson tells us that the female computers—among them Annie Jump Cannon, who was key to the development of the stellar classification system—were hired by Edward Pickering, and were known as “Pickering’s women.” He adds that Cecilia Payne, who was the first to work out that the sun is made up of mostly hydrogen and helium, was given credit for her work by the (male) professor who rejected her findings four years after she presented her dissertations for review. I think with a bit more context it could have been clearer why the two men were sort-of portrayed as champions of these women.
Abby: I was kind of wondering what, say, a 10-year-old girl, an aspiring astrophysicist, would take away about women in science after watching this episode. But I don’t think we can completely write off the show’s attempt to make the Cosmos feel closer to all of its viewers. Host Neil deGrasse Tyson himself is a counterexample to the parade of white men the show has relied on to tell the story of science’s history.
Do you mind elaborating a little on the disproportionate emphasis and deliberate misrepresentation?
You are already there. And this comment says it best.
"Tyson himself is a counterexample to the parade of white men the show has relied on to tell the story of science’s history."
Now I'm all for giving everyone their due and the true contributors need to be recognized, but not out of proportion to their actual contributions simply because they happen to be a counterexample.
Racism and sexism continue to prevail.
The show is concerned with getting girls interested in science by not focusing on guys like Newton. But I guess it doesn't matter if the show is less interesting to young boys because it focuses on a far less interesting contributions made by a group of women when compared to Newton.
It's as if somebody suggested that George Washington Carver ended the civil war and freed the slaves due to his advances in peanut technology.
montanadave
04-29-14, 13:59
While I support the goal of promoting interest in science amongst a broad audience and encouraging a wider demographic to consider STEM careers, I think that social agenda is overshadowing the educational content of the show. Subtle it ain't.
While I support the goal of promoting interest in science amongst a broad audience and encouraging a wider demographic to consider STEM careers, I think that social agenda is overshadowing the educational content of the show. Subtle it ain't.
And that is my issue. Tyson didn't get where he is because Sagan was black, Tyson got where he is because Sagan was interesting to him.
I keep forgetting that show is on and turn to it after it has already started. Out of four random clicking over to the show, I was greeted with:
First time - Church burning guy at the stake.
Second time - Science excelled under Muslim rule.
Third time - Big corporation trying suppressing a scientist researching leaded gasoline.
Fourth time - Contributions of women scientists ignored.
Has racism been covered yet or is that next week?
Only good that I received from the show was the link provided earlier in this discussion to Armarium Magnum blog.
I keep forgetting that show is on and turn to it after it has already started. Out of four random clicking over to the show, I was greeted with:
First time - Church burning guy at the stake.
Second time - Science excelled under Muslim rule.
Third time - Big corporation trying suppressing a scientist researching leaded gasoline.
Fourth time - Contributions of women scientists ignored.
Has racism been covered yet or is that next week?
Only good that I received from the show was the link provided earlier in this discussion to Armarium Magnum blog.
All of those things happened. Not liking that the events happened is not a good reason for not liking the show.
All of those things happened. Not liking that the events happened is not a good reason for not liking the show.
I agree that they occurred. It is the emphasizes placed on them.
I agree that they occurred. It is the emphasizes placed on them.
Fair enough point. I like the show. It isn't as good as the original but I really think it is trying to appeal to the modern demographics. Flash sells. And if it gets younger people interested then great. Kind of like Mythbusters. It is solid testing methodology? No. It is a fun show. But it gets people interested.
And I may not have given it a chance when the first scene that I watched was the church burning a guy at the stake (& I'm not a church going kinda guy).
Fair enough point. I like the show. It isn't as good as the original but I really think it is trying to appeal to the modern demographics. Flash sells. And if it gets younger people interested then great. Kind of like Mythbusters. It is solid testing methodology? No. It is a fun show. But it gets people interested.
It's why I am hating the show. It doesn't promote science, it actually undermines it and harms it's credibility with it's agenda driven bias. It provide and opportunity to reject the actual science they on occasion explore.
This is a huge difference between the original series and this one. Even though the Sagan series had some issues, it was mostly about the science and far less about agendas. And this show is "Cosmos", it's not "mythbusters", "swamp people" or "ice road truckers."
The "flash sells" argument fails because they aren't using "flash" to sell "science", they are using "flash" to sell "bullshit." Might as well have an episode that covers the Roswell alien space crash. We could even tell the story of Pedro, the undocumented Mexican boy who discovered the crash and helped care for the injured crew until the evil white man Air Force arrived to cover everything up and made Pedro "disappear."
We could then discuss the science involved in alien spacecraft propulsion methods and what would be necessary to travel the distances involved, just so we through in a bit of science that will fly over the heads of most who only learned aliens crashed in Roswell and a poor Mexican kid named Pedro tried to help until the "white guys" showed up.
Should make for a fun show.
And I may not have given it a chance when the first scene that I watched was the church burning a guy at the stake (& I'm not a church going kinda guy).
You can be a church going kind of guy and still admit that the Catholic Church did some bad stuff in the past.
montanadave
04-29-14, 20:19
You can be a church going kind of guy and still admit that the Catholic Church did some bad stuff in the past.
Holy shit! Now you've gone and done it! :lol:
25523
SeriousStudent
04-29-14, 21:36
Somebody light the Bat Signal?
...........Deleted. Source was suspect.
Eurodriver
05-06-14, 11:42
I watched Sunday's episode. The last 10 minutes or so was nothing but "Man is causing global warming. We're all going to be extinct if we don't stop it."
And if you think I'm exaggerating even a slight bit, please, watch the episode.
I watched Sunday's episode. The last 10 minutes or so was nothing but "Man is causing global warming. We're all going to be extinct if we don't stop it."
And if you think I'm exaggerating even a slight bit, please, watch the episode.
That's too bad. I could get whiffs of this nonsense here and there in some of the segments I watched.
Pretty friggin ridiculous after illustrating the unbelievable forces in the universe... to then shift gears into some complete B.S. about man made climate change.
That's too bad. I could get whiffs of this nonsense here and there in some of the segments I watched.
Pretty friggin ridiculous after illustrating the unbelievable forces in the universe... to then shift gears into some complete B.S. about man made climate change.
Again, we were talking about my favorite subjects. I should have loved the show. But they again presented assumptions as fact. For all we know the Permian extinction was a Gamma ray burst but they went with the "climate change releasing methane gas" stuff. Certainly most mass extinctions are caused by climate change but except for the KT event we can't say exactly what the exact cause was.
And yeah, the last 10 minutes were basically current "climate change" propaganda. Also funny how back in 1977 we were headed for an imminent "ice age" and now they are declaring such an event is 50,000 years away. Wonder where the hell they came up with that number?
Also funny how back in 1977 we were headed for an imminent "ice age" and now they are declaring such an event is 50,000 years away. Wonder where the hell they came up with that number?
Remember the 80s ACID RAIN??? I remember being a kid and hearing that bullshit.... I though it was a real thing at the time too.
SeriousStudent
05-06-14, 22:53
Remember the 80s ACID RAIN??? I remember being a kid and hearing that bullshit.... I though it was a real thing at the time too.
There was no such thing as acid rain. It was just the tears of people who bought LWRC carbines.
:lol:
"Science was born of Christianity"
http://stacytrasancos.com/fr-jaki-stillbirths-science/
"It is not a pleasant task to call attention to the obvious. To make others appear to be shortsighted, let alone blind, may easily evoke resentment. But it had to be obvious and clearer than daylight that in none of those cultures, although they lacked no talent and ingenuity, did science become a self-sustaining enterprise in which every discovery generates another. In all those cultures the scientific enterprise came to a standstill. It is this phenomenon which I called the stillbirths of science."
montanadave
05-10-14, 10:30
"Science was born of Christianity"
http://stacytrasancos.com/fr-jaki-stillbirths-science/
"It is not a pleasant task to call attention to the obvious. To make others appear to be shortsighted, let alone blind, may easily evoke resentment. But it had to be obvious and clearer than daylight that in none of those cultures, although they lacked no talent and ingenuity, did science become a self-sustaining enterprise in which every discovery generates another. In all those cultures the scientific enterprise came to a standstill. It is this phenomenon which I called the stillbirths of science."
What a load of Orwellian double-speak. The enlightenment and the scientific revolution emerged as an intellectual rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority of the Church and its dogma. To pretend otherwise is simply duplicitous, disingenuous, or both.
What a load of Orwellian double-speak. The enlightenment and the scientific revolution emerged as an intellectual rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority of the Church and its dogma. To pretend otherwise is simply duplicitous, disingenuous, or both.
Sorry, but such claims demonstrate outright patent ignorance of pretty much the entire historical development of science, and a breathtaking willingness to allow oneself to be taken in by the puerile claims of intensely bigoted and rather silly militant secular propagandists.
montanadave
05-10-14, 22:45
Sorry, but such claims demonstrate outright patent ignorance of pretty much the entire historical development of science, and a breathtaking willingness to allow oneself to be taken in by the puerile claims of intensely bigoted and rather silly militant secular propagandists.
Have another cracker.
Have another cracker.
No thanks, panthiesaltines are always half-baked and ill-conceived.
Guys, you can post and attribute this and that, but when it is distilled into true fact, SCIENCE is a human invention. The mammals, reptiles, etc... don't do this dance. You know why? We are cognitive. We think.
You guys are really smart. Not smart ass. I know I won't change your views, but the dim bulb in my head knows SCIENCE is an amalgamation of believers, non believers, and people who could care less.
The only reason I bother to post in this thread is I want it to keep going and I REALLY miss the old COSMOS.
This new... I don't know what to call it, is not anywhere near the mark.
And I'll ETA... Sorry about the mammal, reptile thing you know exactly what I mean.
We are cognitive. We think.
The more we learn, the more we understand we might not be the only creatures on the planet to do so. Now that "thinking" might take a different form but we are learning there is more going on than we previously assumed.
Hey, don't kill the messenger. I know what you mean. Just trying to covey my feelings on the thinking. Or somthing like that. Actually you got me to post in this thread. It is an awsome TV show... The old one.
Hey, don't kill the messenger. I know what you mean. Just trying to covey my feelings on the thinking. Or somthing like that. Actually you got me to post in this thread. It is an awsome TV show... The old one.
I have the Sagan series on DVD. Just been watching the Nova "What Are Animals Thinking" series and it's been a lot more enlightening than the remake of Cosmos.
Human thinking also seems to be strongly rooted in language. Before we had defined language, you have to wonder what human thought and reasoning was like?
This is true. Scaling it back through the ages, thought, and it's necessary evil, language(we will say this by proxy and create new evil) is a means to relate this knowledge or common thought. Strange to think of that way, but that is the only way I can think of it coming to be.
ETA: will be looking further into the NOVA series. I know I liked it but stopped watching years ago. No real reason why, it was a descent series.
SeriousStudent
05-11-14, 00:18
Keep this thread focused on the TV show. If you feel the need to snipe at each other, take it to PM.
It's the same people, the same arguments, and the same closed threads.
Grand58742
06-08-14, 11:58
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUi7C7QgNXE
Remember that creepy Obama intro? He asked to do it to score political points.....LINK (http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/barack-obama-attached-himself-to-premier)
What was the process of getting Obama to introduce the show in the first episode?
That was their choice. We didn't ask them. We didn't have anything to say about it. They asked us, "Do you mind if we intro your show?" Can't say no to the president. So he did. He may have been riding the very high media attention that Cosmos had been getting on the ramp-up. Because it was airing in prime time on a network —
..........
That same week, by the way, Obama — the White House — released its budget, which included a reduction in the science spending in NASA. So if you look at it politically, rather than gesturally, it's easy to think of that as a way for him to try to gain points back in the science community, immediately after dropping the science budget for NASA.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.