movies/tv Cosmos with Niel deGrasse Tyson

[CT-1138 3,182]

Okay, who has been keeping up with this amazing (and slightly controversial) show?! This has got to be one of the greatest shows ever to air. Too bad there are only four episodes left. In this show, we have gone from the furthest reaches of the universe to the tiniest particles in our own bodies, learning the history of sciences and the universe along the way. This show has been incredible!

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

But it will never be with Carl again. No matter how amazing they make it, it will never best the original.

[Naught Important 434]

I love Cosmos! But, it may not be the best show ever aired.

Regardless, it has shown me some things that I haven't realized before, and I'm always up for learning!

[NomDeSpite 452]

Both the original Cosmos and this Tyson-led rebooting are of dubious, throwaway quality. Pop-science is a religion for people who consider themselves too smart, cool and "enlightened" for religion. Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson and Nye are more or less the exact same person, all prone to the same errors of fact and errors of reasoning.

 

Here's a specific example:

 

 

The tricky case of Giordano Bruno

One of the goals of "Cosmos" is to introduce the world to "heroes of science." This would be the premiere episode's one and only massive failure. That's because someone at "Cosmos" decided to trot out the case of a 16th-century Italian philosopher named Giordano Bruno as its first hero.

Unfortunately for "Cosmos," Bruno wasn't terribly heroic. And he wasn't a scientist at all.  Even "Cosmos" points out that Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess," says Tyson. So why is the long-dead philosopher important enough to rate hero status? That would be because "Cosmos" takes his case as one of "martyrdom."

What "Cosmos" does not point out to its audiences that the Catholic Church didn't really care about Bruno's views on the Earth moving around the Sun. His crimes -- the ones for which he was executed -- were theological. Several actual scientists in this period happily investigated the ideas of Copernicus' theories without running into trouble.

Why does this matter?

So what if Giordano Bruno wasn't a scientist and wasn't executed for science? There are three big reasons why this does, in fact, matter and why it hurts "Cosmos" to get it wrong.

1. To borrow one of Tyson's famous quotes, the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. The same goes for history. Getting the history of science wrong hurts science itself. Why believe the science if other parts of the show are inaccurate?

2. Making Bruno into a martyr for science basically makes 100 years of historical research useless. The idea of Giordano Bruno as a scientific hero only originated in the 19th century, when he was championed by several historians. Since then, most have classified him as a philosopher sharing dangerous ideas in a dangerous time.

3. It's an unstated goal of "Cosmos" to champion science and scientific reasoning over superstition and religious dogmatism. But you're not going to win over anyone by vilifying religion in the face of science. Add in Bruno flying into space in an overtly crucifixion stance almost seems like giving religion the finger. You don't win arguments that way, "Cosmos."

Edited May 6, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[CT-1138 3,182]

Uh, Nom, hate to break it to you, but Tyson hasn't vilified religion at all. In fact, Tyson has openly admitted to refusing to discuss religion in the show period. He may have told the history of persecution scientists have had, but if he wanted to vilify religion, he could do so much much more easily, like mentioning all the censorship his show is receiving from locsl FOX stations in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Dinos4Ever

[NomDeSpite 452]

Why does Cosmos call Bruno a "hero of science" when he wasn't actually a scientist? Why does Cosmos call Bruno's death a martyrdom for science when he wasn't murdered for his dissent from Geocentrism? You give no answer to either of these things.

Edited May 6, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Watch out, we got a science over here.

[NomDeSpite 452]

I'm going to use this opportunity to take aim at that most vaunted of Tyson quotes:

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it."

 

This quote is really dumb and now I shall explain why.

 

The word "science" has three definitions.

 

1. The scientific method. Science as a verb. Observe, Question, Hypothesize, Experiment, Results, Repeat.

2. Science as a body of knowledge gleaned from using the scientific method.

3. Science as a profession or business. The task of performing research and experiments in accordance with the scientific method and getting paid for it.

 

Now, obviously, saying "science is true" in regards to definitions 1 and 3 is absurd. Verbs cannot be true or false (unless you also think the statements "cooking is true" or "playing the saxophone is true" make a lick of sense). And saying "science is true" regarding the scientific profession can't make sense unless you say it to mean "It is true that many people are professional scientists".

 

So that leaves us with definition 2. And science as a body of knowledge is actually a mixture of truth and falsehood. Much of the information we've gleaned from the scientific method has turned out to be wrong (geocentrism, miasma theory, steady state theory, fossil fuel theory) and much of what we think we "know" now will be shoveled into the grave in years to come. Don't be surprised when it happens.

 

If Tyson had simply said, "you can learn alot using the scientific method", I obviously would have agreed. Instead, he chose "science is true, whether or not you believe in it", which sounds fine and dandy upon casual inspection, but turns out to be dumber than hell when you look a little closer.

[-Nobody- 519]

Anyway, I haven't seen this show yet, but I like the host, so I'll probably get around to watching it.

 

Also, the show was only "censored" on ONE station in Oklahoma, which might have been an accident.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I never knew that a show like this existed, maybe I'll give it a watch.

[CT-1138 3,182]

I never knew that a show like this existed, maybe I'll give it a watch.

If you're interested in science, I'd definitely give it a watch.

[BayoUni2847 528]

I've watched half of the first episode and it was quite interesting. I personally don't care who hosts the show.

 

Of course, I'd be more inclined to watch it if it was hosted by Morgan Freeman.

[Arctic Night 884]

Great show. Hopefully it might put a dent in scientific apathy and scientific illiteracy, even if it must be a slight one. Although, as has been said, Tyson is no Carl Sagan.

Edited May 7, 2014 by King Ghidora