• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Neil deGrasse Tyson reboots Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dainthomas said:
Come on, you people are so picky. How can you rag on a show like this when they could have easily put out "Real Dancing Sister Wives of Idaho" or something?

I'm a sucker for science shows like this and thought it was great.
Click to expand...

Earlier I said it was decent. I've watched it twice so far, once alone and once with my son. I respect what they are trying to do, but someone said that
it wasn't that different from the original. I disagree with that. The original that I watched on youtube last night ran for 105 minutes straight with no commercials, the reboot was probably around mid 40's when you account for all the commercials in it. Secondly and more importantly Sagan was much more eloquent when it came to narrating the original. His tone, cadence and words made the subject material that much more interesting to me. Neil degrasse Tyson is a good guy and is trying to do the right thing, but I don't think he is as effective as a narrator as Sagan was in the original. I like him alot more when he is isn't reading a script or acting a role, when his passion and excitement are allowed to come through.

Just because the show isn't another 'Dancing Idaho Sisterwives' clone, doesn't mean it isn't above criticism.
 
Rakehellion said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K-LrJkEDc
Click to expand...

An individual Fox affiliate? That's a local TV station that simply subscribes to Fox prime-time TV shows...including extreme leftists programs like Family Guy. Affiliate broadcast stations have nothing to do with the political ideology of Fox News Channel (national cable network).

That independent local station may have done something that they thought was right for their own local viewers. I guess enough of their viewers are religious extremists that they were afraid of being boycotted if they broadcast that part. It's the wrong decision, IMO...but I guess it was up to them to do it.
 
zinfamous said:
also, I'm not aware of an Inquisition convening in Rome during Bruno's time. And I'm not sure if there was ever one in the Italian states, let alone Rome. The closest that comes to mind is Savanorola in Florence and his Bonfire of the Vanities, in the 15th century.
Click to expand...

had nothing to do with any time or place. just a practice common during the inquisition
 
they should of kept hypatia instead of bruno. would of likely resonated more with many people than with bruno. many people already know that men were often executed by the roman catholic church during the middle ages.
 
Thebobo said:
You are getting all pissed off calling me an idiot because I have a different opinion on a TV show? Why do you care why people like it or not, how does that effect your enjoyment of watching the show? Realize how silly that is?

Tell you what, but just for you I will watch every episode and come here and give my opinion on it.
Click to expand...

Rather than defend my opinion by pointing out how others have done a better job with similar material, I should have just said this.
 
norseamd said:
they should of kept hypatia instead of bruno. would of likely resonated more with many people than with bruno. many people already know that men were often executed by the roman catholic church during the middle ages.
Click to expand...

Does anyone of any more popcorn? I'm running out.

tumblr_lw7qn58NxG1qii6tmo1_500.gif
 
The Bruno part bothered me, not because of what it said about the Inquisition, no matter how innacurate as posted above. It's generally accepted as a black period for the Catholic church.

My issue was the little blurb about Bruno having absolutely no evidence of his assertions. It wasn't science. Bruno had a theological fight with the church and lost. To put him up as a champion of science just seems wrong, it was more like a chimpanzee throwing shit at a wall and some of it sticking. Real science requires observation and evidence.
 
Nintendesert said:
The Bruno part bothered me, not because of what it said about the Inquisition, no matter how innacurate as posted above. It's generally accepted as a black period for the Catholic church.

My issue was the little blurb about Bruno having absolutely no evidence of his assertions. It wasn't science. Bruno had a theological fight with the church and lost. To put him up as a champion of science just seems wrong, it was more like a chimpanzee throwing shit at a wall and some of it sticking. Real science requires observation and evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, he pointed out that prestigious scientists were against Bruno. He cautioned that we should question everything.

Something that comes to mind whenever climate change comes up.
 
Nintendesert said:
The Bruno part bothered me, not because of what it said about the Inquisition, no matter how innacurate as posted above. It's generally accepted as a black period for the Catholic church.

My issue was the little blurb about Bruno having absolutely no evidence of his assertions. It wasn't science. Bruno had a theological fight with the church and lost. To put him up as a champion of science just seems wrong, it was more like a chimpanzee throwing shit at a wall and some of it sticking. Real science requires observation and evidence.
Click to expand...

I'd guess a lot of people are not familiar with Bruno, so I hope a lot of people looked him up like I did, in which case they'd understand that Bruno wasn't a scientist as we've come to know them. I don't think they really championed him, and more its about the overall lesson, and in fact, you could construe it as a highlight of why science and religion are different. Bruno was pushing theological arguments. Even today, we have people that act like those are unquestionable. It also highlights the point about science of it being testable and needing tools to actually study. Just putting forth an idea is meaningless without the tools to study them (unfortunately as anyone who's been on Facebook can tell you that still happens an alarmingly high amount). But that too was kinda the point, science as we know it didn't exist.

I don't know if that was intentional, but the more I think about it, I think that segment was really well done. A huge point of emphasis is for people to learn and study. The segment was quite light on real details, hence, it should get you to look into it. For younger people it served its purpose of showing the science and religion divide, early stages of science, and some of the lessons of history. For others, it should push you to look into it further and learn about Bruno (and then of course if you use the Internet, you'll likely end up checking out several other topics/people that relate).

Ichinisan said:
Well, he pointed out that prestigious scientists were against Bruno. He cautioned that we should question everything.

Something that comes to mind whenever climate change comes up.
Click to expand...

😕
 
darkswordsman17 said:
😕
Click to expand...

If you're implying that we shouldn't question the "scientific certainty" that global warming is driven by anthropogenic factors, or even carbon, then I think you missed the point entirely.

Bruno was attacked even by other scientists for challenging the universally-accepted "truth" that turned out to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan said:
If you're implying that we shouldn't question the "scientific certainty" that global warming is driven by anthropogenic factors, or even carbon, then I think you missed the point entirely.

Bruno was attacked even by other "scientists" for challenging the universally-accepted "truth" that turned out to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess I did miss the point entirely, because you don't seem to have one. The only thing I was implying is that that analogy makes no sense, as you're making an awful analogy that doesn't work (since those examples are almost complete opposites; Bruno was non-scientific and no one could test it at the time, but once they could the generally accepted belief changed; the scientific belief on human's role in climate change was considered quite reasonable but uncertain for quite a while, but as more and more scientific data has been acquired its turned into a consensus, so the belief was actually upheld and not changed).
 
Last edited:
Looking forward to this weeks episode. Sounds like evolution, possible origins of life etc. Will then be fun to watch twitter and see the young earth creationists heads explode 😀😀
 
Last edited:
New episode tonight has been quite good, loving the "Evolution is scientific fact..." line. Sad he had to say it in 2014, but it needs to be said.
 
the new Cosmos is really boring, and the animated sequences blow. i really wanted to like it too
 
TraumaRN said:
Care to explain why you think those things?
Click to expand...

didn't hold my attention enough to keep me awake. and in an episode about evolution, why did they decide to cgi fly around some neptune moon or wherever they went towards the end? My wife even said they jump around too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top