Cosmos.. a review

[Ichingcarpenter]

Just a random sample



"Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" is one of the most interesting, accessible and beautiful pieces of scientific television to appear in decades -- basically since the original "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. Revived by host (and astronomer) Neil deGrasse Tyson, Seth MacFarlane (yes, the "Family Guy" guy) and Ann Druyan (Sagan's widow), the new "Cosmos" aims to bring the universe's beauty and wonder to audiences.

Does it succeed?

As long as "Cosmos" sticks to the science it knows best, yes. "Cosmos" is almost as scientifically amazing as it is beautiful. This is no dry textbook -- it's a fun and informative look at the universe.

When "Cosmos" falters -- possibly fatally for some -- is in taking tentative steps away from science and into realms like history and religion. Possibly offensive to some, certainly confusing to many and occasionally inaccurate, "Cosmos" isn't so great in these areas.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2014/03/cosmos-review-neil-degrasse-tyson-brings-brilliant-science-questionable-history-to-the-world.html

I wonder what's questionable but I'm just watching it now and am
only half way through it


My take on the show so far?


1. Sometimes the music overwhelms the show vs the original use of music

2. I like it so far but the cartoon historical stories is something I'll have to get use to. Its OK. Is that Seth MAcFarlane's input?

3. I think its great family viewing and explained in way so far that older children could understand it.


4. great visuals of space for the TV so far which might get the viewer interested


5. I give it a B because nothing can beat Sagan's original.




Your Thoughts?

[Warren DeMontague]

1. I'm glad he devoted so much time to Giordano Bruno.

That guy is a personal favorite of mine.

I liked it. I think my wife was hoping that we could watch it with the kids and sort of recreate the shared, if separate, experience both she and I had as nerdy intellectual kids in 1980, when the original Series blew both of us away. But really the success of the original- and the sea change which has taken place in entertainment, television and technology since then, have rendered some of the specialness of a show like that, redundant. Or like I said to her, really, Carl Sagan and the original show are responsible, in many ways, for things like the Discovery Channel. While admittedly there is a lot of crap on TV, there is also some very good Science programming out there.

So in many ways we all have Sagan to thank for setting the standard. Sort of like how many of the narrative innovations in Citizen Kane don't look so impressive now unless one understands the context, since it really wrote the book on so many developments in the medium.

I look forward to the rest of the Series. I also thought the personal recollection and connection with NDGT and Sagan near the end was a nice, moving touch... as a sort of "Clinton meets Kennedy" moment.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Just finished

yeah the end was quite touching. He has big shoes to step into but I think its a good start and plan to keep watching.

My favorite science show is through the wormhole because its so cutting edge on the new frontiers of what's possible and of course having Morgan Freeman doesn't hurt

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I only got through about the first half of "Cosmos" last night.

I did see the part about Bruno, but I didn't get the same impression from it that Laurel Brown does.

First of all, the show made it clear that Bruno's views weren't based on science. The impression is given that Bruno was a sort of mystic who got his ideas from visions. The show also makes it clear that Bruno wasn't just condemned by one denomination of Christians. In every place Bruno went, the religion that was predominate in that area issued a condemnation of his ideas, which is why Bruno was always traveling from one area of Europe to the other.

In such a short treatment of the subject, the producers of the show weren't really able to give their full opinions on Bruno's ideas, but it would be interesting to speak with Tyson, MacFarlane, and Druyan about why they think Bruno's pronouncements were so accurate. I wonder how each of them views mysticism and visions relative to science. I got the impression from this excerpt that at least one of them doesn't rule out a connection there.

I didn't even notice that Bruno was flying through space in a "crucifixion stance." I certainly didn't get the impression that they were "giving religion the finger." Regardless of whether Bruno was executed for his religious views or his scientific views, the fact remains that he was executed by religious people. If that is all that Brown has to complain about from a historical perspective, I think the show is quite an accomplishment. This is nothing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Since this is just the prologue to the series

Maybe it will go into more depth later in the series on the whole Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo era.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Watching Segan's first episode now

for a comparison.

He mentions spacefaring alien civilizations a lot more in this one. Also his first historical figure he covers is Eratosthenes
vs Neil's Bruno in ancient history as an introduction

I also think he had a gift of poetry in his descriptions which made it the standard


“The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.


I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.”

[exboyfil]

7. I think on space faring civilizations

that their absence now reflects the greater knowledge we now have. On the one hand we know how ubiquitous planets are, but on the other hand we now understand how hard it is to get to technological life (at least in our case). Evolution does not lead ultimately to intelligent life. Dinosaurs had 100 million years and we see no evidence that they were on their way to developing technological life. On earth out of all the species present only hominids acquired the ability to manipulate technology (ocean based sentient beings are severely handicapped from developing technology).

Even getting to eukaryotic organisms took 2.5 billion years from the formation of the earth (date still hotly debated). First multicellular around 2.6 billion.

We experienced several keyhole events that could have ended our species on the path of developing technology. The ability to understand technology does not necessarily result from evolution either (some of the organisms with the least brain power have been very successful like sharks).

Finally how long does a technological civilization survive. We can see in our case that very same technology can jeopardize our species.

Back to to Fermi Paradox - Where are they? I think we should keep looking since acquiring that knowledge is cheap and a clear indication would revolutionize how we view the universe. One approach is trying to figure what signs, beyond signals beamed to us, we should look for in space faring civilizations. Could something like Kepler detect something like a Ringworld or partial Dyson sphere for example? Could massive fission or fusion drive engines be detected?

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. 11 answers to the Fermi Paradox.

There's no shortage of solutions to the Fermi Paradox. The standard ones are fairly well known, and we’re not going to examine them here, but they include the Rare Earth Hypothesis (the suggestion that life is exceptionally rare), the notion that space travel is too difficult, or the distances too vast, the Great Filter Hypothesis (the idea that all sufficiently advanced civilizations destroy themselves before going intergalactic), or that we’re simply not interesting enough.

But for the purposes of this discussion, we’re going to look at some of the more bizarre and arcane solutions to the Fermi Paradox. Because sometimes it takes a weird explanation to answer a weird question. So, as Enrico Fermi famously asked, “Where is everybody?”

1. The Zoo Hypothesis
2. Self-Imposed Quarantine
3. The Whack-a-Mole Hypothesis

4. We’re Made Out of Meat

5. The Simulation Hypothesis
6. Radio Silence
7. All Aliens Are Homebodies
8. We Can’t Read the Signs
9. They’re All Hanging Out At the Edge of the Galaxy
10. Directed Panspermia
11. The Phase Transition Hypothesis

Details at link:
http://io9.com/11-of-the-weirdest-solutions-to-the-fermi-paradox-456850746

I'm fleaning on the 1, 6,8, and 10 arguments myself....

[Sancho]

6. I gave it a B...

not as good as the original. I think the astronomy history is important, but there was too much and it distracted from the science. A little too loaded up on European/inquisition stuff and that is bound to draw some criticism.

At any rate, the show will likely catch some flack from creationists no matter what. The tough topics will continue to be physics that are even more difficult to explain than Sagan included in his series. Sagan benefited from the NASA stuff that was dramatic on TV in the 60's and 70's.

Sagan flirted with the idea of UFO's/ET, and I remember my parents thinking he was a nut case for that notion. Even putting the recordings and pictures of humans on Voyager was a little weird to the pre-WWII generation, but Jimmy Carter admitted seeing a UFO at one point and it made Sagan and SETI more interesting.

The graphics were pretty good even if standing around on a cliff lasted too long for me. I thought the meeting with Sagan was a nice way to finish.

[fascisthunter]

9. Nevermind... I saw MacFarlane and somehow assumed

people were referring to Todd McFarlane...

I watched the show, and thought it was pretty good.

[mmonk]

10. I give it a B- or C. That being said,

it beats all the other bogus and crazy programming out there at the present time.

[pokerfan]

11. Cosmic Calendar

More detail at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar

[phantom power]

12. So far so good. Sagan spent plenty of time on history...

and Sagan also made it abundantly clear that the church was responsible for extending the Dark ages, and for fighting the enlightenment with violence and torture. I imagine that's a bitter pill for some religious people, but its a pill Sagan devoted plenty of time to as well.

[MisterP]

13. here's what we get from Bruno

De Umbris was a work of 16th-c. psychology: for instance, you'd take these 36 decanate-daemons (German) and absorb them into your agentive mind; that way you're thinking with the Zodiac itself: we've known all this since the 60s

Nicholas of Cusa's the best example--but he was during the Scholastic era so he doesn't appear in the 1870s standard hagiographies everyone continues using...

fortunately it's not Discovery Channel fodder!

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. Catholic League review- The inquisition saved thousands of lives .. cosmos sucks

The ignorance is appalling. “The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with [the Inquisition],” writes Dayton historian Thomas Madden. “One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition,” he says, “is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong.” Because the Inquisition brought order and justice where there was none, it actually “saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.” (His emphasis.)

As for Bruno, he was a renegade monk who dabbled in astronomy; he was not a scientist. There is much dispute about what really happened to him. As sociologist Rodney Strong puts it, he got into trouble not for his “scientific” views, but because of his “heretical theology involving the existence of an infinite number of worlds—a work based entirely on imagination and speculation.”

In short, MacFarlane, who is no stranger to the Catholic League, has once again shown his true colors.

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/


So I guess Cosmos did its job....LOL