[drewprops]

The first episode aired last night, wondering what you thought of it?

This next bit is what I posted to my wall on Facebook.

The most inspiring part about the 1st episode of the new COSMOS is the last few minutes when Neil deGrasse Tyson shares a personal story about Carl Sagan's generosity to him and to future scientists. May a new generation of girls and boys be as inspired by Tyson and the many dedicated science teachers out there today!


...

[billybobsky]

From my Facebook feed, it seems like it was enjoyed by those who watched it. Obviously, the show isn't targeted to scientists so the only folks who seemed to have watched it are on my first tier of non-science/non-academic friends, which is almost exclusively in the pool of people I met during high school.

Edit: I will remark as a general comment: My hope for shows like Cosmos is not that they inspire more to become scientists, because we don't need more scientists than are currently being trained in the system, but rather to inspire non-scientists to have a greater appreciation of what it is that scientists do and have more awareness of how to get and evaluate experiments and scientific results. I find the biggest challenge that I have dealing with laypeople is that the common basis for understanding is so low that I have to start at an absurd point to describe anything that I am working on. Hell, it is difficult even with MDs to give you a sense of how much cognitive separation there is out there. When most people only vaguely understand that you eat proteins, explaining that I am designing proteins to help in the treatment of disease is almost too much of a gap to bridge. And the point is that this is my spiel, what I am actually doing is something ever more removed from the eating of proteins. That gap is due to our education system and the fact that after some point people check out and forget what they were taught in school. But I always hold my breath -- these shows inspire people who are already interested, and rarely attract others...

[709]

I enjoyed it. While the science seemed a little "simple", I suppose that the point. I didn't realize it was going to be more of a remake than a whole new series, but that's ok, we have Brian Cox for that. It was kind've fun remembering Sagan's original quip about how there could be thousands of planets out there, where now we know there are actually biiiilionns and biiillllioonnns (apologies for the '80s Carl imitation… hey! I grew up on his stuff!) and it was updated accordingly.

The only small beef* I had was with the animation bit about Bruno. I felt it might have been a little too anti-religion for Fox viewers, and I really want this show to succeed on that network if for no other reason than to open up a few minds. I'm sure MacFarlane had a hand in that bit, so here's hoping he doesn't push that too much. It'd be a shame for people to get turned off just because he wanted to stick his fingers and worldview in there for no reason. It's not helping.

The last few minutes were great, I agree. That NdGT was able to pull out Carl's own calendar and show his appointment written in there, plus the incredible personal story, well, that was good. Very good.


[edit]: *I forgot, 2 beefs actually. There was a line during the evolution bit about "inventing sex". Even Anna was like "wait, pause it, wtf?". It could've been explained with 1 or 2 lines, but it felt like they just skipped over it for no reason at all. If Anna was wtf (she's no dummy) I can imagine that a lot of others were thinking the same thing.

[curiousuburb]

I'll let you know next week... Discovery doesn't air until Mar 16th in the UK

[709]

It's on Hulu as of this morning, and there are *cough* certain things *cough* that allow you to circumvent the US restriction.

For science!

[drewprops]

So that it doesn't get lost please allow me to throw in a plug for my homeboy, James Burke, and all of his wonderful series teaching the history of amazing connections that have happened throughout civilization!!

The Day the Universe Changed



...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb I'll let you know next week... Discovery doesn't air until Mar 16th in the UK

Originally Posted by 709 It's on Hulu as of this morning, and there are *cough* certain things *cough* that allow you to circumvent the US restriction.

There are also plenty of less-than-official copies popping up. I just snagged a copy from a Vimeo account that will likely get a DMCA smackdown shortly. (PM me if you want a link. No idea how long it'll last!)

I'll be watching it later tonight. I doubt there'll be anything "new to me", but it's always refreshing to see a new spin/presentation of an existing subject, especially when it's made up as professionally as this looks to be.

That and, of course, NdGT is just dreamy.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by 709 It's on Hulu as of this morning, and there are *cough* certain things *cough* that allow you to circumvent the US restriction. For science!

Originally Posted by Brad There are also plenty of less-than-official copies popping up. I just snagged a copy from a Vimeo account that will likely get a DMCA smackdown shortly. (PM me if you want a link. No idea how long it'll last!) I'll be watching it later tonight. I doubt there'll be anything "new to me", but it's always refreshing to see a new spin/presentation of an existing subject, especially when it's made up as professionally as this looks to be. That and, of course, NdGT is just dreamy.

Was actually planning to wait for the full 1080p HD in order to enjoy all of the latest CGI goodness hinted at in the trailers. Even with all of our BBC benefits, including Brian Cox and his spiffy Wonders of the ... series, it's hard to get enough quality science docs.

So yeah, shoot me a PM if you've got HD grade links and tips for *cough* remote viewing *cough* of superior sciency content. Thanks.

Actually, the previous Cosmos series with Carl has been wonderful to rewatch on YouTube... and highly soporific. Between the music and his soothing tones, it's a great lullaby of scientific learning... and who knows, maybe some subliminal wisdom osmotes while sleeping.

In addition, the Cosmos links we've watched were "updated editions" and noted the fact that very little of the science needed tweaking - even a dozen years after filming the originals. Hopefully Neil's version will stand the test of time equally well.

Neil has more of a radio/promo voice (at least on Startalk podcasts), so hopefully won't be as snooze-friendly as Carl, but both win for nerd cred. The world would be a lot richer with more men like them.

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb The world would be a lot richer with more men like them.

And women.



...

[Moogs]

I like the idea of it... and the way it is presented is much more engaging than what Sagan did in the 70s, although not entirely Sagan's fault because... he was producing the show in the 70s. But I'm going to give it two or three espisodes before passing judgement. The new "multi-oriented" teardrop space-time transporter / visualizer concept is pretty cool (and way better than Dr. Who's British phone booth I might add).

NDT is unequestionably the right guy for this remake, and I think the state of visual FX are so good now that the producers can create this idea in its fullest expression if they don't sell out too much. We've already got tonnes of "Discovery Science" type cosmology programs, most of which are very thin on the scientific explanations. So we don't need a clone of that genre. Hopefully we do get some real "Penny for NASA" type commentary throughout, wake people up to the importance of that.

I agree it would be better if the science were more front and center but OTOH this is clearly a show being marketed to the general public, not astronomy geeks, etc. It's also on Fox (Nat Geo the channel is owned by Fox, not the Magazine Publisher, in case anyone was wondering still) so there's a strike against real science. However, I was pleased to see the script had undertones of "evoluationary biology and cosmic evolution are real things, so take your sacred text and cram it". Was expecting the "equal treatment to stay PC" approach. "While some believe ______, scientists believe the universe is 14 billion years old........" So good on them for not biffing that part of it.

More than likely I'll miss some episodes and end up watching them back-to-back on DVR (no commercials is a wonderful thing).

[JohnnyTheA]

I loved the old show and I think Fox did a good job with the new one.

[Bryson]

I wanted to like it more than I actually did. All the way through, I kept thinking: I wish the BBC had made this instead.

I don't think it was bad, but it wasn't as good as I hoped. It could use just a little more restraint, IMO.

[drewprops]

To be honest the first episode bored me.

BORED.

But they get a mulligan, since the first episode was quite likely to go all fanboyish with getting handed the reins to the Cosmos franchise.

Episode 2 is where the rubber meets the road.

...

[drewprops]

That didn't take too long.

Grey, you got it right when you mentioned the Bruno story being rather overtly anti-Christian... is that a MacFarlane thing?

Here's a retort to that first episode.



...

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by drewprops That didn't take too long. Grey, you got it right when you mentioned the Bruno story being rather overtly anti-Christian... is that a MacFarlane thing? Here's a retort to that first episode.

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church but that's a pretty convincing argument against Cosmos' portrayal IMO. I didn't know much about Bruno but I guess I was too eager to give credit to the re-creators of a legendary science show. Apparently they've thrown in generous portions of bullshit to match their world-views. Disappointing but hopefully the rest of the episodes get away from that crap.

[Kickaha]

Hmm. I think he lost me early one saying there was freedom of thought, but that you'd have every authority persuading you not to think that if you said it out loud to others.

ie, sure, there was freedom of *thought*, as long as you kept it to yourself?

That's sure splitting hairs there, and indicates a serious axe to grind, IMO. (Reading other articles on the site sure doesn't help me get away from that opinion.)

He might be absolutely correct on the historical facts, but I find his apologetics skewing rhetoric a wee bit.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Hmm. I think he lost me early one saying there was freedom of thought, but that you'd have every authority persuading you not to think that if you said it out loud to others. ie, sure, there was freedom of *thought*, as long as you kept it to yourself? That's sure splitting hairs there, and indicates a serious axe to grind, IMO. (Reading other articles on the site sure doesn't help me get away from that opinion.) He might be absolutely correct on the historical facts, but I find his apologetics skewing rhetoric a wee bit.

This.

Reading the cited "first page of Google search results" suggests that Bruno's status is controversial. Some take him as a pivotal figure in the shift from a Christian, biblical worldview to one based on the scientific method, while others find his mysticism to be problematic or a complete showstopper in that regard. But you can hardly dismiss his influence out of hand, or find his inclusion in a science show to be the purest church slander, as the author suggests.

I'm also fairly weirded out by the Inquisition apologetics. The author is kind of like "Of course they didn't burn him for having science ideas! They burned him for heresy! Because he was really heretical! Get off your high horse modern people, it was a totally reasonable thing to do, at the time!" And then we hear about how they'd drag you in front of a Church court, with due process and everything, and urge you to change your mind for questioning the ideas of the Church (which was the only thing holding society together, apparently), and it was only after you refused such a reasonable request that they burned you. Which was also kind of just, since it was a foretaste of hell.

Sure, the medieval mind was different from ours, but pretending the Church shouldn't be called out for brutality because that's just how they rolled back then and anyway, Bruno was a dick who had it coming, seems a tad, oh, I dunno, horrible.

[billybobsky]

As a scientist, I am disgruntled that he takes the stance they we must only consider the ethics of Bruno's treatment through historical eyes but then balks at defining him as a scientist using contemporary definitions. The very idea of an experiment was barely rationalized in 1600, most scientists were merely observers, readers of ancient accounts... Math and astronomy/cosmology fall under this early stage of understanding, and if I understand Bruno's take on the world, he was proposing cosmological features of a universe that very much did not match the views of the church (and to be honest, still do not -- admitting that intelligent life on other planets in other systems is not merely possible, but probable is not something the Catholic church will likely ever do).

[Brad]

So, I finally got around to watching Episode 1, and yeah, the heaviest criticism on my mind is also about the Bruno story. I could have understood having a brief aside mentioning him and his story, but the writers dwelled on his story/vision/passion for way longer than necessary (especially since the it seems to have been misleading or outright wrong in some ways). Yes, please teach the history of science — we need to understand the hard work, failures, and sacrifices of people to get us to today — but focus on the people who pushed the limits or took risks or actually did science (or did whatever would lead to what we call "science" today). Some guy's proselytizing about a faith vision/dream, whether a true story of not, doesn't really cut it for me.

I was also pretty disappointed by the cosmic calendar segment. I've always loved the idea, but they could have spent a whole episode going through the major milestones. Instead, they rushed through a few. I've seen plenty of others use the calendar metaphor before, and it can work really well, but you have to take the time to fill it out. I really hope they revisit that.

The cosmic address segment was a gentle introduction to the grand, incomprehensible scale of the universe. I'm sure this will get a lot more of info in future episodes too.

Effects and animation were well done. Music was good too; Alan Silvestri delivers once again.

NdGT's personal Sagan story at the end was a nice inspiring touch. I've heard him recall that story in other venues, and it's a great way to link the two. Hell, NdGT's whole "how I got into science" story (as told elsewhere) is a good one, but I kind of doubt the show will revisit it.

Overall, I would give the first episode a 70/100. A passing grade, but barely. I've seen other similarly-themed science shows on History/Nat Geo/Discovery/whatever that have held my attention and interest much better than this pilot did.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by addabox This. Reading the cited "first page of Google search results" suggests that Bruno's status is controversial. Some take him as a pivotal figure in the shift from a Christian, biblical worldview to one based on the scientific method, while others find his mysticism to be problematic or a complete showstopper in that regard. But you can hardly dismiss his influence out of hand, or find his inclusion in a science show to be the purest church slander, as the author suggests. I'm also fairly weirded out by the Inquisition apologetics. The author is kind of like "Of course they didn't burn him for having science ideas! They burned him for heresy! Because he was really heretical! Get off your high horse modern people, it was a totally reasonable thing to do, at the time!" And then we hear about how they'd drag you in front of a Church court, with due process and everything, and urge you to change your mind for questioning the ideas of the Church (which was the only thing holding society together, apparently), and it was only after you refused such a reasonable request that they burned you. Which was also kind of just, since it was a foretaste of hell. Sure, the medieval mind was different from ours, but pretending the Church shouldn't be called out for brutality because that's just how they rolled back then and anyway, Bruno was a dick who had it coming, seems a tad, oh, I dunno, horrible.

Yah the apologist bits were pretty stupid, but what bugs me is, it's pretty clear Bruno was not the "origin" of this way of thinking about the cosmos. Clearly there were other people in his era -- much bigger names than his -- who were already of this mindset and confronting dogmas in the public square. So the way they prortray this guy as "the one mind who was thinking differently about the universe" is a load of crap AFAICT. That's pretty easily disproved just by looking at history books, and matching up some date ranges with other thinkers who did not accept the geocentric way of thinking.

And while Cosmos is lame for spinning it that way, really it's on us to be better edcuated than that (here in the US especially where our knowledge of world history sucks the same way our knowedge of world geography sucks -- at the ages it's most commonly taught). We shouldn't need some religious scholar to point out the BS in the Bruno story, right...?

[Moogs]

All right... DVR queued up. Let's see if they hit a homer tonight.

[drewprops]

I'm looking forward to it!!!!

James Burke regarding scientific objectivism

...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by drewprops James Burke regarding scientific objectivism

I think what he's trying to say can be distilled to two statements:

1. Confirmation bias is a thing. You'll tend to find what you're looking for or want to finding.
2. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you have a paradigm-shattering idea, people are going to resist it unless (or until) your evidence outweighs the strangeness of the idea.

Anyone who works in modern science should expect change. No body of science is untouchable, and most are constantly and gradually changing to fit our understanding of the universe, but you're going to have to hit hard on statement #2 up there if you are going to upend it all. It doesn't happen every day, but it certainly does happen from time to time.

edit: Also, it's interesting how at the very end Burke goes on to predict and describe basically the internet more than a decade before it would take off in the hands of the common man. That show was originally filmed in 1985, if my Googling is to be trusted. He nailed the part about "electronic communities" uniting people across the world free of old prejudices. Too bad we haven't revolutionized government as he'd suggested.

[Moogs]

I wonder if they'll squeeze in an episode about Inflation....

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

I love it when a theory comes together. People who believe in the religious alternative can take their "earth is a few thousand years old" theory and cram it. Also last night's episode was a little better in terms of staying on a specific target. I loved the "if it makes you feel uneasy to think you're related to a monkey, what about a tree?" analogy. Would've paid good money to be a fly on the wall in some bible-thumpin' homes when that question was asked. "A tree....? Hmmm. Trees don't make me feel inferior... a tree? Well I never thought of that -- I'll have to ask my pastor and get back to you."

[billybobsky]

I would move with caution on interpretations of the results from the microwave background radiation polarization study. First, it is a much larger effect than previous studies have shown should be possible -- that is, it is an extraordinary claim. Other studies are underway, so it will be a rapidly moving target. The biggest problem I have with the press is that 1) this is an unreleased report, and 2) the important bit of it, this claim that inflation/primordial gravitational waves are the only explanation for the polarization, is already two steps removed from the actual data collected. Nothing good can come from taking this as dogma just yet....

[Moogs]

I know he's got a dog in the race but when Alan Guth and some other well known cosmologists are throwing the word "Nobel" around, I'm going ot listen. Of course nothing it proven yet, but certainly seems a big step in that direction from my layman's perspective.

[drewprops]

Time for truth: I'm kind of over Cosmos already

Guess I'll need to catch up in re-runs.


...

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by drewprops Time for truth: I'm kind of over Cosmos already Guess I'll need to catch up in re-runs. ...

I really wanted to love this show. But usually, I'm just bored. I fell asleep watching the last one.

[Capella]

I haven't been watching this, but I feel compelled to post that I am listening to him speak at a local college today.

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by Capella I haven't been watching this, but I feel compelled to post that I am listening to him speak at a local college today.

Enjoy! He came and spoke at my university a few months ago and I got to go. He's a great public speaker.