Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is perfectly reasonable in a show about science to show how religious dogma violates basic tenets of the scientific process. If that hurts the feelings of anti-science Luddites then so be it.
No. Unlike when the original aired, for whatever insane reasons this young earth nonsense is considered credible by far too many. It's a shame that it has to be addressed at all but such are the times we are living.
I thought the first episode was good, but not great. I did think they spent an inordinate amount of time on the animation of Bruno, and I do remember thinking they were really twisting the knife a little (I'm a lifelong atheist so I didn't really mind, but I did, you know, notice).
I enjoyed the calendar bit and the dedication to Sagan at the end.
I've seen all the episodes of "The Universe" and "How the Universe Works" as well as most of what Brian Cox has done (Wonders of Life, Human Universe) and the Morgan Freeman "Through the Wormhole" show. Was also a big fan of the original Cosmos which started the day after my sixth birthday. I've read one of Tyson's books and seen him live one time. I visit Universe Today daily. So I was understandably underwhelmed at the 'aimed at Middle School' tone of parts of the show. But I guess that's the point -- a family-friendly, not too deep, not too data-intensive survey meant to inspire first and inform second.
They did enough to make me turn on the series recording feature on my DVR, so I'll be back for at least a few more episodes. It's still better than most other programming.
This was probably some of the best commentary on it yet:
"The show’s presentation of science will likely be brilliant and visually stunning, hopefully opening people’s minds to the wonder and complexity of the universe. But it should have stayed within the parameters of its own expertise – or at least provided an unbiased look at the whole story of what actually happened. A show and worldview that thrive on empirical evidence should have the sense and integrity to apply that approach to all aspects of its storytelling."
(BTW I am not a "young earth" believer nor is anyone I know. I enjoy reading publications and commentary from the scientists at Reasons.org on those matters).
I thought the first episode was good, but not great. I did think they spent an inordinate amount of time on the animation of Bruno, and I do remember thinking they were really twisting the knife a little (I'm a lifelong atheist so I didn't really mind, but I did, you know, notice).
I enjoyed the calendar bit and the dedication to Sagan at the end.
I've seen all the episodes of "The Universe" and "How the Universe Works" as well as most of what Brian Cox has done (Wonders of Life, Human Universe) and the Morgan Freeman "Through the Wormhole" show. Was also a big fan of the original Cosmos which started the day after my sixth birthday. I've read one of Tyson's books and seen him live one time. I visit Universe Today daily. So I was understandably underwhelmed at the 'aimed at Middle School' tone of parts of the show. But I guess that's the point -- a family-friendly, not too deep, not too data-intensive survey meant to inspire first and inform second.
They did enough to make me turn on the series recording feature on my DVR, so I'll be back for at least a few more episodes. It's still better than most other programming.
You should also check out "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking". I especially like episode 2 which deals with time dilation. I hope Cosmos eventually talks about it because it really is mind bending stuff. It's only made all the sweeter because time dilation is not a theory. We have directly observed it through satellites.
I watched some of it, but it was dumbed down to the point it wasn't very interesting.
I agree. I thought it was pretty boring, actually. The visuals looked like the same ones I've seen in dozens of other 'universe' shows I've turned off after suffering through a 10 minute explanation that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the reverse. I'm certainly no astrophysicist and wouldn't be able to interpret any complex mathematical models, but there is ground between that and a 4th grade level of sophistication. I felt like the producers assumed most viewers were closer to the latter so that's how it was presented. Maybe subsequent episodes will be more interesting.
You should also check out "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking". I especially like episode 2 which deals with time dilation. I hope Cosmos eventually talks about it because it really is mind bending stuff. It's only made all the sweeter because time dilation is not a theory. We have directly observed it through satellites.
Will do! I love mind bending stuff!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
