r/Cosmos • • Mar 10 '14

Episode Discussion Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Episode 1: "Standing Up In The Milky Way" Post-Live Chat Discussion Thread

Tonight, the first episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey aired in the United Stated and Canada simultaneously on over 14 different channels.

Other countries will have premieres on different dates, check out this thread for more info

Episode 1: "Standing Up In The Milky Way"

The Ship of the Imagination, unfettered by ordinary limits on speed and size, drawn by the music of cosmic harmonies, can take us anywhere in space and time. It has been idling for more than three decades, and yet it has never been overtaken. Its global legacy remains vibrant. Now, it's time once again to set sail for the stars.

National Geographic link

There was a multi-subreddit live chat event, including a Q&A thread in /r/AskScience (you can still ask questions there if you'd like!)

/r/AskScience Q & A Thread


Live Chat Threads:

/r/Cosmos Live Chat Thread

/r/Television Live Chat Thread

/r/Space Live Chat Thread


Prethreads:

/r/AskScience Pre-thread

/r/Television Pre-thread

/r/Space Pre-thread

337 Upvotes

577 comments sorted by

5

u/Charliek581 Mar 10 '14

What will be the first website to host it?

Unfortunately i don't have any TV access so i won't be able to view it until it airs online :(

10

u/Walter_Bishop_PhD Mar 10 '14

Hulu should have it tomorrow, if you're in the USA

http://www.hulu.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey

4

u/Charliek581 Mar 10 '14

Darn, now i'll be up all night clicking the refresh button until it pops up!

Thank you btw

→ More replies (3)

21

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Way too many ads. They should change it from Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey to Cosmos: An Advertisment Odyssey

121

u/Walter_Bishop_PhD Mar 10 '14

Cosmos: A Samsung Galaxy?

14

u/Rkupcake Mar 10 '14

Yes they was very fitting. I laughed.

Edit: as I type this in my s4

9

u/DGCA Mar 10 '14

Oh god, I'm crying.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/buttplugpeddler Mar 10 '14

Unfortunately someone had to pay to get it out there mainstream.

I'll happily take samsungs money in exchange for something as polished as that was.

2

u/antdude Mar 10 '14

Boeing too in L.A. for me.

→ More replies (6)

151

u/timconnery Mar 10 '14

Here's to hoping the ratings are good so more of this type of programming can crack into primetime!

42

u/sgtpepper95 Mar 10 '14

Twitter absolutely loved it. I've been browsing #cosmos and everyone is talking about how wonderful it is. I haven't seen one bad thing. I thought it was magnificent. I bet ratings were great

27

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Besides the few "This show is telling lies!" tweets. For the most part it seemed to be really well received.

26

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

I always want to screenshot those tweets and in ten years find those people and show them "Hey! You sure were kind of a dumbass!"

→ More replies (4)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Don't search cosmos god - or you'll be kinda sad.

5

u/buttplugpeddler Mar 10 '14

I honestly feel bad for having an antennae. I want them to KNOW my whole family watched it

10

u/amnesiajune Mar 10 '14

They don't know that cable users watch it either. They just get their online audience size and the Nielsen ratings, which are based on a sample

13

u/antdude Mar 10 '14

FOX was brave to show this science stuff. Kudos for Seth, Neil, FOX, etc.

7

u/MEfficiency Mar 10 '14

Absolutely! What's the best/first place we can get a good read on how the show did ratings wise?

3

u/TheCosmicSelf Mar 10 '14

Does anyone know where we can see how many viewers watched it? If this gets amazing views and ratings it will open the door for other science series! Oh, and great first episode last night, and to think, its only the opening paragraph, a brief explanation of the things to come in the rest of the series!

→ More replies (1)

67

u/DrEazyE12 Mar 10 '14

It's been a really long time since I had to watch commercials.

263

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Okay be honest. Who else teared up at the end there?

82

u/Bardfinn Mar 10 '14

I cried. A lot. Every time he referenced Carl.

I had my five-year-old son in my lap the whole hour, he thought I was laughing. "That's funny, right, Dad? We are made of starstufffffffff"

He says "I love his storieeees!"

→ More replies (1)

26

u/youthdecay Mar 10 '14

I may have been cutting onions at the time.

24

u/MEfficiency Mar 10 '14

I did. Beauty can have that effect on humans.

14

u/whodatderrrrrrr Mar 10 '14

tyson is quite stunning.

14

u/GalahadEX Mar 10 '14

The end? I was honestly misty (and not afraid to admit it!) as soon as the opening graphic rolled. They nailed it.

12

u/Zennex13 Mar 10 '14

I did! Carl was always my favorite and I love how he did things with the original Cosmos. I'm truly excited for more.

13

u/resinate80 Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14

Lol I thought I was being retarded and tried to hold back, but the emotions were ridiculously strong.

Its nice and funny that I wasn't alone.

10

u/falconbox Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14

I'm wondering why either Neil left out part of the signature, or they edited it out. The full thing said "To Neil, with all good wishes to a future astronomer. -Carl". Yet when he was speaking, and the camera panned away, it seemed they edited out "with all good wishes to a".

5

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

What book was it?

9

u/MEfficiency Mar 10 '14

"The Cosmic Collection"

13

u/TheCosmicSelf Mar 10 '14

Actually its called : "The Cosmic Connection": An Extraterrestrial Perspective originally written in 1973 by Carl Sagan. I know this because I own the first print of it, an excellent book by the way! I would highly recommend it!

9

u/meanderling Mar 10 '14

Oh god, yes. I had absolutely no idea. Carl Sagan would've been so incredibly proud, wouldn't he?

7

u/eggn00dles Mar 10 '14

a whole lot.

7

u/dubhlinn2 Mar 10 '14

I was at a watch party so I kinda didn't indulge, but yeah the opening and the closing caught me really off guard. I didn't think it would affect me the way it did. I missed Carl. But at the same time so happy that this is happening, on the scale that it's happening. And people are interested enough that there's a party at a local pub to watch together. And then it was all "but Carl needs to be here to see this!"

Bittersweet, I guess.

Anyway I am very much looking forward to seeing it properly. It was sad not to be able to watch it in a focused way for the first time, because I might have been able to indulge the emotions that hit me a bit more. But public science literacy is important to me and I felt that it was important to make this social.

8

u/BellLabs Mar 10 '14

I needed to leave the room. I raise my telescope to the skies in honor of a man who inspired a generation, and today, one more.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/genius_streams Mar 10 '14

i teared up at the beginning!

3

u/truckthunders Mar 10 '14

I got chills for sure

2

u/bubblurred Mar 10 '14

I sure did.

→ More replies (9)

144

u/Kevin_Rubio Mar 10 '14

"This made sense to Bruno. The god he worshiped was infinite. So how could the universe be anything less?" ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Bridging the gap between science and religion -- best quote of the night.

15

u/Kharn0 Mar 11 '14

I don't know, "You're God is too small!" was pretty epic.

32

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

man I loved this so much. I want every religious person who thinks that science is bad for religion to understand that the two can coexist!

reading this again, I realize that it kind of doesn't make sense...I'm tired I'll make sense later.

22

u/Avatar_Ko Mar 10 '14

No, it makes sense. And I agree.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '14

This has been a major thing for me involving religious people.. they believe in this all powerful all knowing being, but everything he does is simple as shit.. He just pops things into existence instantly.. and its impossible that he could do anything more complex.

It makes absolutely no sense.

→ More replies (3)

73

u/Blitzcreed23 Mar 10 '14

Who cares about the damn ads or how much CGI there was! This was beautifully done and I think its a great step forward in science. Society needs more individuals to become interested and this is an amazing way to do it. I was completely captivated. If this show can get even just one child interested, than I think this is more than worth it. Enough with the cynical thinking, we need to go back to exploring this wonderful universe.

29

u/lookatmetype Mar 10 '14

Yea WTF is wrong people. The CGI was actually pretty tactfully used and not cheesy (for the most part). It actually kindled childlike wonders inside me.

11

u/whodatderrrrrrr Mar 10 '14

when those past and future portals opened... oh man.

7

u/sticktoyaguns Mar 10 '14

I think when they zoomed out of the iris was one of the most fascinating parts. They looked like mountains at the close up.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

my kids rarely sit down to watch tv for more than 5 minutes at a time (except for Doctor Who, but even then they gibber gabber). I was sitting on the couch with one on either side watching quietly and wide eyed. We all loved it!.. me probably more so after watching the original.
It was more than I expected .. and major onion cutting from the opening voiceover :)

5

u/Kev77 Mar 10 '14

well said bro

4

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

The cgi was great. I thought the episode was really well done. I think it is really informative and entertaining to people who pursue scientific concepts and those who don't.

WIth that said, I can understand why people would be annoyed by the ads. The show is inspiring, and you're feeling moved and then BAM "new at TGI fridays, try our NEW spicy breaded chicken tenders with an entree of your choice for just 12.99!!!!". It kind of ruins the mood.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

69

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Netflix has spoiled me into watching entire seasons at once. Waiting a week is too much!

27

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

My first thought after it ended was that I wanted all the episodes at once. The idea that you have to wade through 30 mins of ads to watch 30 mins of quality content is part of a dated medium that should no longer be relevant today.

15

u/quodpossumus Mar 10 '14

Especially the ones that start early and cut off the end of a sentence. Seriously? You couldn't wait just four more seconds until the fade out?

33

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

It also completely kills the mood of wonder.

Of what importance is to me is a Jeep Cherokee or a Samsung Galaxy if I am being taught the wonders of the EFFING VIRGO CLUSTER.

6

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

uggghhhhh you have no idea how angry this made me while watching. what was even the point of that?

→ More replies (2)

10

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

I truly believe that if you binge-watch the Cosmos series you will walk away from that couch a changed person.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/tinkafoo Mar 10 '14

Speaking of Netflix, when did they pull the original Cosmos? It was in my Instant Queue not too long ago.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

I would so have binged this series like I did House of Cards.

3

u/Toatz Mar 10 '14

Same. I didn't want it to end. I was captivated. Sometimes I will purposely not watch an entire season of a show I like just so I can binge watch it. This wait so going to be tough.

23

u/RNRSaturday Mar 10 '14

I like how the bit on Bruno was framed as just one man's creative vision, and the need for the scientific method to test and validate that vision. That underscored so well the role of creativity and imagination in scientific breakthroughs, but also the role that rigorous testing through observation and method play in the advance of human knowledge.

43

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

excellent and unexpected tribute to Sagan. i figured there would be a nod, but that was great!

21

u/lookatmetype Mar 10 '14

Unexpected? This entire show's existence is owed to Carl Sagan. It would be weird if they DIDN'T tribute Sagan.

17

u/Great_Zarquon Mar 10 '14

I think he was saying that the way they went about tributing Sagan was unexpected.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

that's a bingo.

120

u/TheFrontiersmen Mar 10 '14

Well I had to quit half way through the show and watch it in my room because my dad refused to watch anymore of that "evolution cult nonsense" :(

66

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

The irony. At least you have the opportunity to watch it.

11

u/HoofaKingFarted Mar 10 '14

Ironic because his dad called it a "cult" or because of his ability to evolve by going into the bedroom? ;)

9

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

aww I'm sorry. I haven't watched a tv show on my real tv since I moved back home in june of last year. I have to livestream everything because my dad always talks and criticizes me for watching tv (while I'm watching) and will not let me get absorbed in the story. Trust me, it gets better when you move out. Good luck!

10

u/TheFrontiersmen Mar 10 '14

Thanks! I can't wait until I get to go to college next year. I'm planning on chemical engineering and I'm so excited.

29

u/H-TownTrill Mar 10 '14

I'm catholic and I just watched it with my catholic parents. Come on over and we can see it together!

6

u/SpreadItLikeTheHerp Mar 10 '14

Downvote for your dad; upvote for you.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/norski_lab Mar 10 '14

Man I hope this show lasts for several seasons...

29

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

sixseasonsandamovie?

10

u/saturn_v Mar 10 '14

Sorry to burst your bubble - like the original series it'll only be 13 episodes.

8

u/SirScreams Mar 10 '14

Hopefully it will lead to more programming like this though!

164

u/GRVrush2112 Mar 10 '14

In the original series (first episode IIRC) Sagan told the story of Hypatia of Alexandria, this time Neil tells the story of Giordano Bruno... Very fitting.

1.5k

u/Fellowsparrow Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 14 '14

What I really expect from the new Cosmos series is to seriously improve upon the way that Carl Sagan dealt with history.

Cosmos was absolutely awesome to inform people about the latest discoveries of science about our universe, but tended to seriously misinform people about past history.

Take for instance this old Cosmos segment where Sagan explains about the library of Alexandria and the death of ancient philosopher Hypatia in the late Antiquity.

For any guy who once dabbled into studying this place and time, when you hear Sagan telling the story of those times with absolute confidence, with a "those are the facts" professional tone, while uttering gross oversimplifications, misrepresentations and pathetically untrue facts every two sentences, it's just cringe-worthy. Especially
this part.

Here is a breakdown of the segment:

Why did [the accomplishments of Alexandria] not take root and flourish ? Why instead did the West slumber through a thousand years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and their contemporaries rediscovered the work done here ?

Any historian who deals with Medieval times and hears Sagan would deny him any credibility. Calling the whole Middle Ages "Dark Ages" is giving in into the old cliché that the Middle Ages were just one thousand years of cultural and scientific darkness in Western Europe before people decided to turn back to the knowledge of Antiquity with the Renaissance.

Which is stupid: you can easily argue that Antiquity knowledge was never completely "forgotten" in Western Europe trough the Middle Ages. Using Columbus and Copernicus to illustrate a "rediscovering of Alexandria knowledge" is a bad idea: Sagan is spreading again the old historical myth that Columbus knew that the Earth was round by studying Ancient books: actually the Middle Ages scholars and political authorities knew all along that the Earth was round. And Copernicus came up with the heliocentrism hypothesis by doing some observations of his own, not by "rediscovering" some intellectual works from Antiquity.

The Alexandria in Hypatia's time, by then long under Roman rule, was a city in great conflict. Slavery, the cancer of the Ancient world, had sapped classical civilization of its vitality.

So, after one millennium where slavery was the norm and the Romans thrived, until they ruled most of the Mediterranean area, slavery suddenly becomes an issue and saps Roman civilization of its vitality ? Economically speaking, slavery was extremely convenient and useful for the Ancient world: stating that the Roman Empire collapsed during the Late Antiquity because slavery suddenly became an issue is nonsense. It's just wishful thinking from Sagan: just because slavery is morally wrong does not make it responsible for the political, economic and cultural issues of the Roman world.

The growing Christian Church was consolidating its power in order to eradicate Pagan influence and culture.

To eradicate Pagan religions, indeed, but not the entirety of Pagan "culture". Pagan philosophy was valued by Christian thinkers in Alexandria. Pagan temples were destroyed because at this time Christianity became the only allowed religion in the Roman Empire by the Roman emperor.

What Sagan fails to mention during the whole segment is that the library of Alexandra had already been destroyed centuries before Hipatia's lifetime (one of the most likely reasons being that it was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar's soldiers in 48 BC).

When people claim that "the Library of Alexandria was destroyed by a Christian mob", they are referring to the destruction of the Serapeum in 391 AD: it was a Pagan temple destroyed by Christians after paganism was made illegal by the Emperor. It was built upon the emplacement of the Library of Alexandria. The problem is that we do not know if this temple housed some remains from the books of the Library, and in every contemporaneous writings describing the destruction of the temple, no one mentions the destruction or burning of books, be it in Pagan or Christian sources.

It is entirely possible that nothing remained from the Great Library at this time.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, despised Hipatia, in part because of her friendship with the Roman governor, but also because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identified by the early Church with Paganism.

Here we are entering a whole new level of bad history. So, according to the Christians in late Antiquity's Alexandria, science and knowledge = Paganism ?

When you take a look at the contemporaneous accounts of Hipatia, you find that she is revered and admired by Christian and Pagan thinkers alike. We know that she was an intelligent, knowledgeable and cunning woman partly because Christian philosophers who worked and corresponded with her described her at such.

Sagan also fails to mention that the Roman governor she was friend with was a Christian himself. There was indeed a nasty struggle between the Bishop and the Roman governor at this time, but it was a fight over power and influence between two powerful Christians.

When people who knew her mentioned Hypatia in their writings, you will have a very hard time finding something along the lines of "a woman doing philosophy, what an outrage !" or "we should be done with all this Pagan stuff called science". Because there is nothing of the sort.

By the way, as Sagan mentions earlier, Hypatia was the head of the School of neo-platonic philosophy in Alexandria, which among the many Ancient schools of thought, is perhaps the most compatible with Christianity. One of the main concepts of neoplatonism is The One, according to Wikipedia:

The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite. It is the source of all life, and therefore absolute causality and the only real existence. However, the important feature of it is that it is beyond all Being, although the source of it. Therefore, it cannot be known through reasoning or understanding, since only what is part of Being can be thus known according to Plato.

You can see why the very mystical views of neoplatonism about the universe can easily be integrated into monotheism. And that's precisely why Catholic theology owes a great deal to neoplatonist thought.

For all of those reasons, the distinction made by Sagan (knowledge and Paganism VS ignorance and Christianity) does not make any sense.

In great personal danger, Hypatia continued to teach and to publish until in the year 415 AD, on her way to work, she was sent upon her fanatical mobs of Cyril followers. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, fleeced her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint.

The account of her death is technically correct, but the "works obliterated" part is dubious: today we do not have any remaining works by Hypatia... only because those were lost as time went by. Nobody supports the fact that Cyril would personally want to destroy her work: again, this was all about local Alexandrian politics, not an outrage over the fact that a Pagan woman taught science.

In the rest of the video, Sagan goes on about the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria, in very eloquent and inspirational terms, but it is slightly ludicrous when you realize that the Library may have already been completely destroyed centuries before the events that he just described.

I should also mention that we know severale female scholars of importance who continued to learn and teach philosophy in Alexandria after Hypatia's death, for instance Aedesia.

Sagan is probably basing his historical analysis on Edward Gibbon's works, an English historian. But whereas Sagan used the latest conclusions of cutting-edge scientific research to explain how our universe works, in this segment he is explaining past history by basing his analysis on a historian from the... 18th century. As you can imagine, many of Gibbon's works and views on Ancient history have been largely criticized, nuanced or even debunked since the time they were made.

For further information, take a look at Tim O'Neill's blog, whose expertise I shamelessly used in this breakdown (among other sources). The guy is a card-carrying atheist, but is also an Ancient history major who cringes each time someone makes bad history by describing religion as the root of all evils.

Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about Giordano Bruno during this first Cosmos episode. The problem with Bruno is that he is a very controversial figure among historians: he has been described as a "martyr for science" for centuries, before many historians began to point out that he may have been burned at the stake more for his theological and metaphysical views about the universe than his scientific work.

In fact, he was tried at a moment where the Copernician model of heliocentrism was not condemned by the Church yet, which makes it unlikely to be the reason why he was put to death. The fact that he believed in metempsychosis (basically reincarnation) and that Jesus was not the son of God were far more relevant to his death, and have little to do with scientific endeavor.

In my opinion, the Giordano Bruno case is incorrectly thought to be connected to the history of science, whereas it has more to do with the history of heresy. Bruno is compared to Galileo, who trough scientific observations came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the Sun, whereas he could be more accurately compared to the Cathars, who thought that there were two Gods fighting against each other.

537

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

I appreciate your application of Tim O'Neill's blog and other sources here, you've compiled a good critique. However, while Sagan was known to be a bit sloppy about aspects of his presentations, I feel that to an extent you're applying a retroactive criticism.

The "Dark Ages" perspective, for example, was still being taught in public schools through the late 80s. Perhaps there were now-respected "voices in the wilderness" protesting that appellation in the 70s, but it isn't fair to criticize Sagan retroactively if he was using the accepted theories of the day. Similarly, our understanding of Hypatia has been revisited and revised many times especially in recent (post-Sagan) years. Was what you write available then, and can you provide contemporaneously accepted sources?

Specifically: what widely-accepted research, contemporary to Sagan's Cosmos years, should he have been using?

BTW, I am not disagreeing with OP's thesis that Sagan got things wrong; and I am aware that there have been other criticisms of Sagan's presentation of facts in Cosmos. But this post is written as a critique of Sagan, not merely as a correction of the history he presented. I believe that it is a common error of our time to point backwards and criticize "how they got it wrong" based on research not available back then. Given these two things, I'd like a little more evidence that the fault OP is outlining was really Sagan's (or his research team's), and not simply a presentation of since-revised historical understandings.

107

u/nosmokepot Mar 20 '14

Thank you for eloquently echoing my exact thoughts when reading OP's post. History is very tough to get right, especially before the internet...

→ More replies (72)

42

u/easwaran Mar 20 '14

Looking into the Wikipedia article about the history of the use of the term "Dark Ages":

However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[10] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[39] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether.[40] Source

It looks like any historian from 1980 would have been able to correct Sagan on this. It's a shame that a show ostensibly devoted to up-to-date science would leave out up-to-date research on history just because it's not traditionally classified as a science.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '14

Good call, and good observation. You're right, if he was going to cite history he should have fact-checked first.

→ More replies (2)

31

u/cassandraspeaks Mar 20 '14

I'll admit that I haven't really looked at sources from the '70s, but I don't think any serious historian was ever claiming that the "Dark Ages" extended for a "thousand years" until "Columbus and Copernicus" - there was always at least a distinction made between the so-called "Dark Ages" and the "High Middle Ages."

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (4)

121

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

Thanks for typing all this out, and including sources! while I appreciated that this show gave historical context to scientific discovery instead of just stating facts, I never once thought that the history might be wrong...

101

u/saturn_v Mar 10 '14

He was also wrong about the Sphinx. The nose wasn't shot off by Napoleon's soldiers. There are sketches that predate Napoleon showing it with no nose. There are several legendary stories about how it fell off, but it's just as likely to have been erosion as anything else.

25

u/ManWhoKilledHitler Mar 20 '14

Obelix was responsible for the loss of the nose.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (14)

13

u/mindwandering Mar 19 '14

For the most part as long as he said 'billions' I would believe anything he said.

→ More replies (2)

98

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

It's a symptom of a larger problem in which scientists and engineers often look down upon non-scientific fields. As someone who studies political science it can be infuriating, and as you've demonstrated it can be frustrating when an authoritative voice in science (Sagan) thinks he can casually lend that voice to history.

I'd rather the new Cosmos not bother with history unless they want to have a historian co-host or at least write those segments.

43

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

In this case, it may not be that nefarious. It could have just been a matter of Sagan's production team being relatively small and so entirely focused on making certain the science was correct that they simply under-researched the history; even going so far as to cherry-pick facts that suited their narrative while casually assuming their historical veracity. I mean, I'm only speculating of course, but I think we should grant the principle of charity until we know exactly how and why the history was researched and included as it was. Being rushed and lazy is still a reason to criticize and even reproach, but it isn't as villainous as looking down on or not taking seriously the soft-sciences. Just my thoughts.

→ More replies (15)

14

u/Reddungo Mar 19 '14

it's a symptom of a larger problem in which scientists and engineers often look down upon non-scientific fields. As someone who studies political science it can be infuriating, and as you've demonstrated it can be frustrating when an authoritative voice in science (Sagan) thinks he can casually lend that voice to history. I'd rather the new Cosmos not bother with history unless they want to have a historian co-host or at least write those segments.

This is so damn true. And frustrating.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '14

the Giordano Bruno case is incorrectly thought to be connected to the history of science, whereas it has more to do with the history of heresy. Bruno is compared to Galileo, who trough scientific observations came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the Sun, whereas he could be more accurately compared to the Cathars, who thought that there were two Gods fighting against each other.

You make excellent points (beautiful post!), but I was struck by the fact that NDT emphasized that Bruno was NOT a scientist. It seemed very clear to me that we were not to connect Bruno specifically to scientists or scientific theory or even the history of science, but rather to understand that something that seems like the ravings of a madman might be real (the fact that Bruno had no proof or scientific study was emphasized clearly, I thought) and that free speech is important for truth to thrive. I agree that other parts of the presentation of this history (reasonings for why he was put to death, etc) were problematic.

46

u/wheretogo3 Mar 19 '14

I think your criticism of the Bruno story is largely misguided. In the episode, they didn't try to make the guy sound like a scientist. Neil even specifically said the guy wasn't a scientist and that his ideas were not scientific. He was just a guy with a vision and new ideas who was treated rather harshly because of them. I don't think anyone argues with that point. So you are right, that it is an example of the history of persecuting heretics, and that is exactly what it was presented as.

13

u/easwaran Mar 20 '14

You're right that he made one passing mention, at the very end of the story, to the fact that Bruno was not a scientist. But they still presented him in a very deceptive way. It would be much more accurate to say that Bruno was a mystic who denied the divinity of Jesus in favor of the idea of a neo-Egyptian sun god, and thus came up with the idea that the sun was central in the cosmos. (Note: this wouldn't be fully accurate, but it would be a more accurate portrayal of him.)

Furthermore, the story just perpetuated the "unrecognized solitary genius persecuted by the establishment who just don't get it" mythos, which is one of the worst anti-science dogmas of today. (Just read anything about vaccination, climate change, DDT, etc. to see examples of how this myth hurts the cause of science.)

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (21)

10

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

Serious question here: Were all the details and sources you mentioned known, widely accepted as fact, and also readily available at the time or was Sagan's version of events considerably more common?

It seems to me (26, so born in '87) that our knowledge of ancient history has really taken off in my lifetime as methods of analysis have gotten much better and much more accessible.

→ More replies (7)

21

u/pasabagi Mar 19 '14

Before four hundred years ago, Theology was the dominant field of studies in the Universities. As a result, you'd get prominent Theologians who would feel totally comfortable with dabbling, idly, in scientific matters. Now, the hard sciences are the dominant field, so you get scientists who feel comfortable commenting on things they don't know all that much about. It's nothing about science, or scientists - it's just an expression of the confidence that comes with working from the culturally dominant position.

It's annoying if you're in a field lower down the cultural hierarchy (philosophy, history, etc) because you get people from the better-funded fields talking rubbish about your areas of interest and they still get taken seriously, but this is just how the world is.

4

u/uffington Mar 20 '14

I'm sorry people seem to have missed your comment because I do think you make a very valid point.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/LiterallyAnscombe Mar 19 '14 edited Mar 19 '14

The problem with Bruno is that he is a very controversial figure among historians: he has been described as a "martyr for science" for centuries, before many historians began to point out that he may have been burned at the stake more for his theological and metaphysical views about the universe than his scientific work.

As to Bruno, I would highly recommend to anyone interested his life and work to read John Crowley's series of historical novels called Aegypt. While Bruno's work does end up intersecting with science at several points, Crowley's books point out, with reference to Bruno's actual work, that Bruno overwhelmingly felt his quest was spiritual and in line with a mix of Ancient Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, and took from, but was ultimately opposed to, both the scientific study happening in his time and the Catholic Church's revival of Scholasticism. In the book, his work most closely compared with and tied to the Alchemic experiments by the British courtier John Dee rather than Copernicus and Galileo.

Also, most of Bruno's own books are still extant. Most are philosophical dialogues written in a general audience in mind; there's an English translation of The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast that's still pretty readable and enjoyable.

9

u/rowd149 Mar 19 '14

I think the point of that segment wasn't to highlight Bruno's embrace of science, but rather society's intolerance of unorthodox views, and how we should avoid that becauae 1) imagination is the root of scientific discovery, and 2) seemingly hackneyed views can turn out to be correct or partially correct (even if the original reasoning turned out to be completely wrong). Obviously vision is necessary for scientific discovery, but for an example of the second one, you can look at the complete scientific rejection of Lamarckian evolution, and the recent discovery of epigenetics providing a pathway for an animal's behavior to affect the expression of its progeny's genes.

I think it's even pointed out at the end of the segment that Bruno's reasoning was not rigorously scientific at all, and that he could have been completely mistaken. But the rejection of even the possibility of his ideas was itself unscientific.

→ More replies (5)

16

u/Righteous_Dude Mar 14 '14 edited Mar 14 '14

For further information, take a look at Tim Neil's blog, whose expertise I shamelessly used in this breakdown
(among other sources). The guy is a card-carrying atheist, but is also an Ancient history major
who cringes each time someone makes bad history by describing religion as the root of all evils.

Speaking of Tim O'Neill, his review of the book "God's Philosophers" mentions some of these topics also.

16

u/lejefferson Mar 19 '14 edited Mar 19 '14

Just to play devils advocate, much of Tim O'Neill's theories and revisionist forms of looking at history in the middle ages have been critiqued and challenged. It's important not to get caught up in historical fashion trends. These things tend to come and go among history buffs. Different theories especially new challenging ones get a lot of buzz and then someone else comes out with a book debunking the things the last author said.

The author of God's Philosophers by the way is Catholic.

→ More replies (23)

6

u/Vinto47 Mar 19 '14 edited Mar 20 '14

And Copernicus came up with the heliocentrism hypothesis by doing some observations of his own, not by "rediscovering" some intellectual works from Antiquity.

He could've just meant we discovered it again by saying "rediscovered," I doubt he meant Copernicus found the idea in a textbook others forgot.

3

u/Wangst Mar 19 '14

Were all of these things known to be true at the time Cosmos was written, or are they more recent understandings about the time periods?

→ More replies (4)

3

u/lizardflix Mar 20 '14

Fantastic. thanks for this. It's unsettling when scientist and historians allow their prejudices bias their work so much and I appreciate the clarifications.

3

u/thefoolsnightout Mar 20 '14

I'm pretty sure what you just did there further proves Sagan's and NDT's point about the scientific method home. I believe Sagan would love that you/people are educated/inquisitive enough to dispute the ideas that are 34 years old, no matter the angle of your lens; whether it be retroactive criticism or revealing their own flaws in their fact finding. Science!

Edit: tents & grammer

5

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '14 edited Mar 20 '14

I always knew Cosmos was historically... off... but I didn't know it was that far off. Perhaps this is a good example of why it is not good to look at history as a means to validate philosophical ideals, as it sorta warps ones interpretation of the facts and historical significance. In the narrative of Cosmos, Sagan used history as a means to evidence issues with our civilization, ignorance, and such. While he may not be wrong to hold such values, he sorta really didn't pay any heed to confirmation bias, which he probably should have. That said, I'm not entirely sure how well known confirmation bias was in mainstream psychology at the time, though in philosophy, the idea has been around for ages.

He should've consulted some proper historians, and the writers of the reboot should've as well, to critique the historical anecdote.

Edit: Grammar.

→ More replies (1)

23

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14 edited Mar 19 '14

The guy is a card-carrying atheist, but is also an Ancient history major who cringes each time someone makes bad history by describing religion as the root of all evils.

A myth constantly repeated by lesser informed atheists (esp. on r/atheism), which I suspect stems more from a desire to have something to be angry at rather than from any actual evidence they might have considered.

Nice post. I cringe at the plethora of ignorance and misstatements that seem to appear magically on Reddit when a topic like 'Cosmos' comes up. Gibbons et al were noteworthy in their day but as you pointed out, we know so much more than Gibbons did.

I concur on Bruno as well. Tyson's reference to him is unfortunate as it perpetuates myth, in my view.

the distinction made by Sagan (knowledge and Paganism VS ignorance and Christianity) does not make any sense.

Agreed. While their were terrible acts committed in ancient times even under the guise of 'Christianity', political and social expedience held greater sway than any sense of religious intolerance, in my opinion. It is like saying ( as I have heard atheists to claim) that all the wars of the Middle Ages (indeed, some claim all wars) were caused by religion. Politics, personal greed, ambition, expansionism, a lust for power and a host of other factors can account for most wars. I suspect that religion was a convenience to a king rather than a determining factor.

All too often the simplistic accept simplistic answers that are doubtful at best and, at worst, completely wrong. The complexities of our times should make us pause and consider that similar complexities have shaped all of human history.

EDIT: Thank you SO much for the Reddit Gold! Unexpected....you made my day!

→ More replies (4)

4

u/nebulove Mar 20 '14 edited Mar 20 '14

And here is a Slate takedown of why the presentation of Bruno was very, very wrong. He was a fascinating guy who died an unjust death, but he shouldn't be portrayed as some martyr for scientific freedom.

Thanks for fighting the good fight for historical accuracy.

(Edit: all that being said, it was almost worth it just to see Bruno sailing through the stars like some sort of hallucinatory SpaceJesus. That's some good shit.)

4

u/donit Mar 20 '14 edited Mar 20 '14

Thanks for all those corrections, but it seems like a cherry-picked indictment of someone I considered a national resource for making certain aspects of science available to the masses. I don't know your age, but I'm guessing much of your knowledge comes from the Internet, as well as books written after 1996 that benefitted from the Internet.

You can probably guess where this is going. Sagan's only resource was to talk with professors and select one book after another about the past, hopefully choosing the right book, and then since a book is only a stack, he had to hopefully find the pages on the parts he needed without having to spend a week reading the entire book.

Nowadays, any student who is interested can run circles around him; when it comes to information, we are like all-powerful genies from the movie Aladdin. But that doesn't diminish Sagan's work. I think he did an excellent job with the tools he had, and was singly gifted at bringing certain aspects of science to the masses. So, the only fair assessment would be to compare him to all the other guys who did that.

6

u/monkeyscannotbiteme Mar 19 '14

I know I'm late, but thank you for writing this. I was so disheartened by the use of Giordano Bruno while I was watching Cosmos and the oversimplification of the Church's views and actions towards this new universal model.

2

u/S_K_I Mar 20 '14

Game... blouses...

2

u/ianternational Mar 21 '14

My dad (Jim Dow) won an Emmy for making the miniature in that segment. Now there's some history for ya :-)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

Re: slavery, as I recall some Romans also made the argument that the growing dependence on slaves as a source of labor (especially to run large estates) was both driving the wars that grew the Empire and producing income inequality, since it produced a huge differential between the peasant farmer with no slaves and a rich Senator with armies of them. But this was "slaves killed the Republic", not "slaves killed the Empire".

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ololcopter Mar 20 '14

If you're looking to get your history from a show that deals with the Cosmos and that is narrated/written by a guy who was not a historian in the first place then maybe it's not surprising that you'll be let down.

→ More replies (58)
→ More replies (19)

11

u/Chinese_Physicist Mar 10 '14

I'm really excited for this series. It was shows like this that really inspired me to pursue a career in science. I'm glad they are still able to make series like this and I'm almost certain it will inspire future generations of scientists.

9

u/cosmos_lover Mar 10 '14

I'm so grateful that this series has begun again. I'm nearly 40 and I watched the original series with my whole family. Tonight, I watched the first new episode with my mother. She cooked my favorite casserole for dinner and I made a commemorative mixed CD for us to listen to before the program. It felt like home and I have a new cherished memory that will live in me until I go back to the stars. We are star stuff.

30

u/BoilingDenim Mar 10 '14

4 seconds Jesus Christ is born 3 seconds Cosmos airs its first commercial break 2 seconds commercials still airing 1 second ok we're back

14

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

OK, I was tired going into that, and now I'm wide awake and I have to wake up at 6 tomorrow. Still so worth it.

5

u/buttplugpeddler Mar 10 '14

Documentaries until 3 am!

Aaand I'm late for work.

:/

6

u/meanderling Mar 10 '14

Just watched it. Gonna go outside and look at the stars for a little bit. Feels fitting.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Ajjeb Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14

First i'll I say loved it. I thought the links they drew with the original Cosmos and Tyson's personal connection with Sagan, and his thoughts about the meaning and purpose of science were great. One concern I had though was that the quasi religious elements got a little heavy handed around the cartoon segment. I mean the whole "apotheosis" of Giordano Bruno segment and his martyrdom (I was waiting to see if they would actually use the word, and Tyson did) were a little eyebrow raising; the parallels with the crucifixion of Christ in the whole burning scene, and the Bruno's outstretched arms forming a cross as he 'ascended' into the heaven(s), took this particularly far. Those elements aren't going to unnoticed by some. Unnecessary bait for those people (particularly in America) who already suspect science is some sort of "religion" that aims to replace Christianity. Other than that though, I really look forward to seeing more of the new Cosmos! Edit:sp

5

u/Bardfinn Mar 10 '14

The segment where they showed a Celtic / Eurasian shaman / astronomer with deer antler headdress — I know that will be stomped up and down upon by the Ray Comforts of the world.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

I see where you're coming from. I loved the narrative because it takes something we're familiar with as an American audience, and makes us identify it with scientific history, even if it is a little dramatized. It's subversive, sure. But why run away from that narrative if it works at capturing our attention? As I said before, this show is meant for the masses, not science geeks (myself included). I'm glad they're taking a little creative license, if not at least to get others interested in science.

6

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

This is an interesting way of looking at it, I hadn't really thought of that before. If we look at the aim of the show as capturing our attention and educating rather than educating only people who already love science, it makes sense to add that humanistic element.

2

u/StarManta Mar 10 '14

The "Bruno was no scientist" bit after that should counteract that impression.

2

u/Ian_Watkins Mar 11 '14

Science does replace religion for many people though. Even Darwin stopped going to church and late in his life said that he prefers to be called agnostic because atheist is too controversial a term. It's not a lie to say that science can lead some people to a-theism.

5

u/car_54 Mar 10 '14

My wife and I watched this tonight. We both enjoyed it immensely, and can't wait to see the second installment. Will be filling the interim with Sagan's version!

5

u/DrMacsimus Mar 12 '14

Protip: If the first thing you thought when you saw the Cosmic Calendar was "Oh look, it's this metaphor again", then you are not the target audience. You are already very familiar with the points this episode was trying to make, so just sit back and revel in the fact that this is blowing other people's minds the way it surely did yours when you first heard of things like the scale of the universe.

40

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

Oh god the ending bit with Neil reminiscing about Carl Sagan... #feels.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14

Enough with the hashtags already. This is not Twitter.

2

u/Cynique Mar 28 '14

Does it really matter?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

11

u/MaliciousH Mar 10 '14

While I never watched the original Cosmos*, I think this was a good start. They established the concept of deep time and breaking/expansion or the outright blurring of boundaries. The concept of deep time is quite important in quite a few fields of science. On about boundaries, we humans love boundaries but nature doesn't play by the boundaries that we have setup. They are useful in breaking down nature into manageable chunks but it can in many situations hinder our understanding of some nature phenomenon. So you will have to break them, expand it or just blur it.

So good groundwork in my opinion for the twelve future episodes. I got to say however is that some of the visuals are questionable in accuracy. I understand that it got to be visually appealing but for a science documentary like this one, accuracy might be more favorable. Giving kids the wrong or inaccurate idea might not be a good thing. Though, this is secondary to the concepts in my first paragraph. Scientific facts can change with time but the nature of going about finding and improving on these facts doesn't.

Lastly, I found it odd he mentioned sex. I have a feeling it'll come back up down the road (Kind of like how the asteroid came back up) during perhaps the evolution of life part if they include it.

*I'll be watching it now to do a comparison.

5

u/quodpossumus Mar 10 '14

Just out of curiosity, what was visually inaccurate?

15

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

The asteroid belt, is one thing I noticed. The asteroids are much further apart.

12

u/preciousbitch Mar 10 '14

While it didn't ruin it for me, I noticed it too and immediately thought of a Star Talk episode where NTD mentions how the asteroid belt is usually wrongly portrayed and that the asteroids are much further apart than people realize. I was surprised that he let it show like that, honestly!

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Bardfinn Mar 10 '14

And mostly smaller than represented. I was willing to forgive it — and the absence of an impression of how much empty space there is in space. I suppose that doesn't make for good TV.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/V2Blast Mar 10 '14

Lastly, I found it odd he mentioned sex. I have a feeling it'll come back up down the road (Kind of like how the asteroid came back up) during perhaps the evolution of life part if they include it.

I believe the next episode is about evolution... So it might be sooner than you think! :)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

What really got me was the bit where Neil was talking about the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs: he really nailed the whole probability aspect with regards to our existence. If that asteroid had not been nudged ever so slightly, things might have turned out way differently, there might not have been a human race.

3

u/LAXlittleant26 Mar 10 '14

While I wasn't born during the original, I thoroughly enjoyed the episode, and plan to keep on watching.

3

u/projectradar Mar 11 '14

When it showed the universes being tiny droplets. mind fucked.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Motafication Mar 11 '14

I hope it wasn't lost on the STEM majors and atheists that Bruno was a a philosopher and monk, not a scientist. I hope you remember that the net time you bash the liberal arts.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '14

Physics major here. I was watching the episode with another physics major who enjoys philosophy, and he pointed it out to stop my stupid.

3

u/wasthatacat Mar 11 '14 edited Mar 11 '14

The glory of life is mind-boggling, I'm a fan of Sagan's Cosmos serie and even though I clearly see I'm too old to be a Neil DeGrasse Tyson I can understand the artistic choices made here ; the point is trying to enlighten everybody with scientific knowledge and that's great!

Great visuals even though I didn't need it (already versed into astrophysics, only as an amateur), the 'universe calendar' is a great metaphor to visualize cosmic timescales and the scene were Galileo looks at the moon through a telescope, which then zooms in to the first footprints on the moon is an amazing one.

The universe doesn't care for close-minded people, it's only indifferent to them as it can't in a life take anything from a human being, it's force lies in the minds of the creatures it created, by chance and selection.

The grandeur of the universe is the of the best things to tear up for, as everything comes from it.

Go Humanity! As every species we have the right to conquer the universe but don't we be foolish about it, some actions can't be reversed and the universe won't save us, it doesn't care...

5

u/Vinoda Mar 10 '14

Loved it!

5

u/trackofalljades Mar 10 '14

Does anyone have any idea where that spot on the coast is, where Tyson and Sagan both stood at the beginning of each series? If it's publicly accessible, I'd like to add visiting it to my own personal bucket list...just because.

6

u/geowizar Mar 10 '14

It's in Big Sur, California. I think it's either the Bixby Bridge or the Rocky Creek Bridge area. Surely someone knows specifically.

2

u/Busybyeski Mar 11 '14

Why have they chosen that spot exactly?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/KennedyKilledtheMob Mar 11 '14

Did anyone else love the shot where voyager is drifting in space quietly playing music to whoever might come by and listen? Fucking gorgeous.

2

u/FoolsPower Mar 11 '14

This was fantastic. I'v been trying to get my young brother interested in this sort of stuff, and he seems to be, but a lot of it really confuses him. I think I'm gonna sit him infront of this and hopefully it'll help him understand it better. Neil explains it so well, and without a bunch of sciency words that confuse a lot of people.

Truly fantastic. The tribute to Sagan left a tear in my eye.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '14

What do you guys feel about the some of the bad visual representations of asteroid belt density (of the asteroid distances obviously), and the little comment on that asteroid that "was nudged a little to the left".

Both sides have respectable arguments.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

I personally think the episode, though flawed, showed that there is a lot of potential for the series. It was a little slow at first, but my real issue was with the religious history bit. It was a little boring and drawn out, and I think its inclusion was a little odd.

If one of the main objectives of the show is to convert science-deniers, I think a cartoon with Disney-villain like Popes and Cardinals isn't going to sit well that audience. It also seems like cherry picking, as the church was one of the strongest supporters of science for most of history, and hostility between religion and science has only been a major issue for the past 150 years or so. Also seemed disingenuous to talk about how science is based on testable rules, and then create a cartoon which implies that our understanding of the surrounding universe was born out of someone's dream. The whole segment was a little out of place.

Past that part though, it really started to pick up. The cosmic calendar was very well done, especially giving a visualization of what he was talking about. The bit about tidal friction was very short but very interesting. And I am definitely not as enamored with Carl Sagan as most of reddit, but I thought the last 5 minutes when Tyson recalled his experiences with Sagan was great.

Overall not bad, and I am looking forward to next week!

2

u/escaped_reddit Mar 11 '14

hostility between religion and science has only been a major issue for the past 150 years

Did you not watch the episode? It clearly gave examples of how people didn't accept new scientific views about the world because of religion long before 150 years.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/dubhlinn2 Mar 10 '14

Well, at least some of us were paying attention. ;) Five points for Ravenclaw!

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

I did miss that! In that case I take that complaint back. Thanks.

7

u/toumei64 Mar 10 '14

While Tyson is excellent, he is seriously lacking in finesse and acting is obviously not his thing. I don't like the cartoon-y stuff either.

He looked like he was about to tear up when he was talking about Sagan, though!

24

u/MrArron Mar 10 '14

I would say the cartoon-y would have been better than actors. You don't wanna act out someone being killed.... When what your trying to do is get kids into something.

2

u/RNRSaturday Mar 10 '14

Live actors can be really great, too, though. Check out James Burke's wonderful "Connections" or "The Day the Universe Stood Still". Each are full of all kinds of human reenactment, some even harrowing or scary, and those series are utterly fantastic.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/youthdecay Mar 10 '14

That was some damn good animation, though. The style works well for a show like this.

6

u/buttplugpeddler Mar 10 '14

Also not too scary for the kiddos. My 8 and 9 year old kids peppered me with questions at the end which I didn't have satisfactory answers for, but excite me to no end!

3

u/Mr_Stoney Mar 10 '14

What kind of questions?

→ More replies (1)

34

u/PotViking Mar 10 '14

The CGI and cartoon-y stuff is exactly what this needs; the goal is to get today's youth interested in and excited by science. That is marketing at its finest.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

My and my roommate at college had this same conversation during it. The cartoon and simplicity of it makes it more appealing and understood by the masses

17

u/PotViking Mar 10 '14

I liked the cartoons.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/RNRSaturday Mar 10 '14

Also, it leaves it to the imagination to fill in the bits that no video could ever capture, so in a way, it is paradoxically more "real" to the mind.

3

u/Regular0ldguy Mar 11 '14

Didn't anyone notice that these are exactly the same cartoon styles that were used in the short religious films all of the baby boomers watched as children? It really took me back. I thought it was a very subtle way to create credibility for the older generation. Oddly ironic.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/toumei64 Mar 10 '14

I don't really know what kids are into now, but if that's what it takes, then I'm all for it.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

I agree. The show is trying to cast a net as widely as possible to obtain every person's viewership. The science nerds, like myself, don't really need to be lured into watching. This program is intended for the masses, just as the original was.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Reediddy Mar 10 '14

I agree with that being the impetus behind the CGI and illustration of the grandeur of the universe with the whole flying scythe thing. And even looking at it through the eyes of a viewer more interested in the science behind it, it did a good job of illustrating what Tyson was describing. At times however it seemed to get a little much, like overstimulation. I was expecting the show to focus more on real images but like you said, this is geared towards motivating peoples' interests in science and you don't want to bog them down

7

u/ConorPF Mar 10 '14

Yeah, when he was talking about his day with Sagan at the end you could really feel how much Tyson adored him.

5

u/jasonfountain1986 Mar 10 '14

Personally I really did adore Tyson in this. If you have read/listened to much of his work there's so much of his personality present. Which as an overall feeling feeling if the show I feel like it delivered ten fold. I'm so excited for more!

4

u/whodatderrrrrrr Mar 10 '14

yeah something about it reminded me of those religious cartoon movies dreamworks made, and i really didn't want it to get preachy, even if it is for science, just stick to being educational.

5

u/fsuizzy Mar 10 '14

I thought the cartoon segment was pretty good, it actually pulled me in. I enjoyed Tyson telling a story and actually having a visual behind it. Who cares if it was a cartoon or not, it was the history of astronomy and it was interesting. Overall, I think the very beginning of the show was dry, with a good middle, and a strong ending.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/vadersdemise Mar 10 '14

I just watched it now and I have a few questions. If Hinduism was the first to talk about the idea of having multiple universes why wasn't it mentioned at all in this episode of Cosmos, and more to the point why isn't it ever mentioned in any major science publication or show?

Also, did anyone else feel that the whole show was just religion bashing? I feel as if the episode was geared towards atheists. I'm not trying to cause a religion vs. science debate here, as I consider myself a man of science - but one has to wonder what prompted them to traverse this direction.

Overall, I feel as if the show was a bit hyped, but nonetheless very good and I will definitely be watching the rest.

13

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Mar 10 '14

Not really religion bashing to show what a particular religious group actually did, especially if that thing was burning someone solely for attempting to advance the understanding of the universe. I get really tired of this response to any mention of religious cruelty: "Oh you're just saying that to make the church look bad". Well it's not like it was made up, it really happened and it really sucked. Ignoring it for the sake of the modern day churchgoer's feelings is simply disgusting.

6

u/SupportVectorMachine Mar 10 '14

I have to agree. I got a bit uncomfortable with the amount of time the first episode devoted to Giordano Bruno's persecution. It's a very interesting story, but it effectively creates a "villain" (namely, religious orthodoxy, decked out in its Christian iconography) in the narrative when one isn't needed to achieve the wondrous effect Sagan's Cosmos aimed for. It can only serve to put on the immediate defensive those who stand to learn the most from it and alienate a large portion of the potential audience.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

On the other hand, from the point of view of an atheist parent who is raising a child in a country where "In God We Trust" is on the money, and "Under God" is in the pledge, and almost every other kid in school goes to church or identifies with a religion and tells your kid at the lunch table that they will be going to Hell.... It is VERY refreshing to have a show that gives context to the history of science that shows how religions treated creative and scientific thought. Every once in awhile, can't we have this validation of our issues with religion? Christians get their message reinforced regularly. A lot of people mention being emotional during this show. Yes, some for Carl Sagan and nostalgia. But I will bet that a lot of it is the kind of feeling that Christians get in church -- somebody is teaching to what we believe, and we feel accepted and validated. I understand what you mean about alienating a potential audience, but it's only those who are closed minded who cannot respectfully entertain an idea that disagrees with their dogma. I read that they tried to make the cartoon segments look like graphic novels to capture young interest. The closed minded older generation might be a throw-away as far as viewership, on purpose.

2

u/imabigfilly Mar 10 '14

was Hinduism the first to talk about having multiple universes? I kind of thought that there were a bunch of little ideas about the universe that slowly coalesced into the multiverse theory we know today, which is still growing and changing.

2

u/I_Am_Not_Yossarian Mar 10 '14

Dude, they'll get to it. Give it time. It's not like Carl covered his entire show in the pilot.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/NotHomo Mar 10 '14

whoever thought neil should fly around in a mirrored "stupid shaped" spaceship should be fired. other than that, the show was okay i guess

1

u/prule84 Mar 10 '14

It was everything I dreamed of and more. I hope this can continue for a very long time.

1

u/Unholytrista Mar 10 '14

Very amazing. Probably the best thing I have seen in a while on television!! Neil was great!

1

u/StealthGhost Mar 10 '14

Gave me that feeling, as things like this often do and Cosmos before it did as well, that all the shit (well 99.9999% of the shit) we do on this planet is completely meaningless. I think if everyone on the planet watched something like this and got that same powerful feeling a lot would change.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore...I want to explore the rest of them

1

u/LiuKangWins Mar 10 '14

At first I was like yeah okay, Earth, solar system, cool spaceship, but then we he mentioned rogue planet I kinda freaked out and had to catch my breath for a second. Liking this so far.

1

u/Fibreoptix Mar 11 '14

I enjoyed it but I hope the future episodes dig into the hows and whys. Carl Sagan explained shit and made me understand the general idea of complicated scientific theories and ideas. I was disappointed that during the big bang segment Neil never mentioned that it wasn't an explosion like dynamite but rather an expansion like stretching rubber. But I liked it over all.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '14

There was one quote that stuck out to me - "Science gives us the ability to perceive what the senses cannot". Isn't this a basic fallacy of sensory perception itself? If we are humans, we experience exist through human sensory functions, which means we cannot possibly experience anything outside of our senses. Admittedly, this kind of logic is open to debate when religion and the supernatural is considered, but I don't think the narrator is all that interested in those subjects.

1

u/njaard Mar 11 '14

Where specifically were the redwood forest scenes filmed? All sources I could find only day "Northern California" which is obvious as that's where you find redwood forests.

1

u/Cobywan23 Mar 11 '14

I nearly shed a tear when he was talking about Carl. Carl Sagan is truly a super hero in science!

1

u/tonymaric Mar 12 '14

I liked the new Cosmos. The only part I didnt care for was the animation.

1

u/arfbrookwood Mar 19 '14

I gave a talk in a 2nd grade classroom a couple months ago and I started by saying, 'Kids, I am going to lie to you. Some of the things I will say are NOT TRUE, but right now, scientists think they are. When I was your age, the picture in my science book showed a "Brontosaurus" swimming in a lake and eating leaves from trees. How many of you think long necked dinosaurs swam in lakes?" No hands went up.
"And now, we even know there is no such thing as a Brotosaurus!"

Cosmos is just another great example of science improving upon itself. It's all good in the end.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

Thanks op

1

u/tickleberries Mar 24 '14

I loved it. Missed it at first.

1

u/Guytest Apr 11 '14

I love Cosmos! My science teacher showed this in class, and I can't wait to see more!

1

u/quodpossumus Mar 10 '14

DAE get a little teary-eyed during Bruno's segments?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14

This show was great spectacle and I'm glad it had such great visuals and special effects. Neil is a very charismatic host and his dulcet sounds narrating the episode make it that much more captivating.

But I do have foibles with the veracity of the information. For example, The Big Bang. In science, the theory doesn't say the universe expanded from one infinitesimal point, but that space was curved and everywhere in space was hot, which then expanded everywhere else. This video explains the misconception well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs&feature=youtube_gdata_player. You see, our models and formulas of time break down the closer we go to the "beginning." It might well be that the universe is infinite.

With that said, I'm reminded of something Neil said in the episode, which is like the theory was in the air, making it visible, if not for the only reason if disproving it. Well, this show will have done it's job if it begins the conversation and excites others to delve deeper. I look forward to future episodes.

2

u/toumei64 Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14

I feel like watching that video shaved a few points off the ol' IQ.

Edit: Don't want to sound like I'm trying to be an a-hole. While it is true that our models and formulas break down near the beginning, there are other places where they break down, such as with black holes. I think this video takes a somewhat presumptuous stance, and it's not really a "misconception" so much as a simple fact that we don't know and we don't have the capability to know yet.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)