Cosmos, with Neil DeGrasse Tyson - In which we learn that FOX is not the same as Fox News

Mild Confusion · March 2014

I like how he uses the term radar. A radar uses radio waves to track objects by timing the bounce back from an emitter. The timing is based on relativity, which you have to accept as fact if you actually want to use the system.

So if you accept relativity as fact, then you have to accept the age of the universe via the same means.

Boom goes the dynamite!

King Riptor · March 2014

You can believe in god and believe in evolution!
Just not the current judeo christian intetpretations.

Hell most of the bible reads like a scientists research study

Centipede Damascus · March 2014

override367 wrote: »

humans are going to kick evolution's ass with trans-humanism

we're going to be eight armed cyborgs with no fear and multiple sets of genitals

Hesh wants to be a tiger-bot!

Shadowfire · March 2014

Jragghen wrote: »

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is meow complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will “ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationists-demand-airtime-cosmos-sake-balance

Zilla360 · March 2014

Wraith260 wrote: »

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

ok, so they know this. if only they'd actually understand it.

Having read the writings of deluded creationist 'physicists', I doubt it. It's not about facts for them, it is about Ego and socio-cultural identity, a war of wills, 'us versus them, the others'.

Zilla360 · March 2014

Example, this group:
https://www.youtube.com/user/tfpstudentaction/about

Buttcleft · March 2014

Zilla360 wrote: »

Wraith260 wrote: »

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

ok, so they know this. if only they'd actually understand it.

Having read the writings of deluded creationist 'physicists', I doubt it. It's not about facts for them, it is about Ego and socio-cultural identity, a war of wills, 'us versus them, the others'.

Radar is just jesus echos.

Zilla360 · March 2014

I like this 'rule of three' on 'teaching the controversy':

1. As soon as creationists use actual facts: objectively observable, testable and debatable facts instead of simply pointing at a book and saying "there's the proof" then we will be more than happy to bankroll a Cosmos style show just for them. I don't have the money but I don't think they'll ever have the "goods" so I don't have to worry about raising it either. "WE" the collective have debated the creationist/evolution ideas ad-nauseam and creationists have no new information to bring to the debate. All of their arguments have been debunked and science has provided provable or highly plausible answers to every question posed to it.

2. Your right to free speech is just that a right. No-one has any obligation to provide time, space or audience for your expression. If you want to produce a show about creationism and can get a network to show it, good for you. Some believe we are all defended from aliens, or a flying spaghetti monster; Cosmos has no obligation to offer those opinions either. Look Christians: There are about a billion of you. There are also about a billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and all of you believe that you worship the one true god and know the true meaning of all the ancient texts. You can't all be correct and the most plausible answer is that you are all wrong and there is no god, gods, spirits, or any other super natural powers.

3. The premise of most of religion's dislike of the Big Bang theory is that "nothing can just be, it has to be created". Well, where did you god come from if nothing "just is"? How improbable is it that super intelligent being that exists everywhere all the time(omnipresent) and has total knowledge(omniscient) and control(omnipotent) over every single quark in the entire Universe just spawned in to existence out of nothingness? For all your rants, you have the same problem as science except that science says "we don't know but we're looking really hard". Religion says "your question is stupid" (see item #1).

enlightenedbum · March 2014

My major issue with the show is that it presents pretty simplistic heroes and villains with as many stereotypes loaded into the villains to make them seem more villainous as possible. Their treatment of Hooke tonight for example. His voice is all raspy; he says ridiculous cliched things; the history is somewhat slanted against him; he's drawn as a balding, stooped, broken asshole. People are not as straightforward as physics.

Sorce · March 2014

Well, part of the problem with Hooke (and it was mentioned in the show) is that we don't know what he looked like, we only have others' verbal descriptions of him. And to be honest, if some pretty famous people didn't like you, you're probably not going to look/sound good.

halkun · March 2014

When I went to London two years ago, I went to see Newton's grave a Westminster Abby. I saw that Darwin was not 20 feet away from him. I've never heard of Hooke, (partially, because I suck at math and never took a mechanical engineering course while I was at college.) I, however, had heard of Newton since the 6th grade, so I guess there was a winner in history for that one.

Also, according to the Wikipedias, the only surviving descriptions of Hooke are not all that kind.

TexiKen · March 2014

History is written by the victors, which means Newton and his Mean Girls got to fetch over Hooke pretty good.

Gotta be honest brahs, after the great first episode these two have kind of been streets behind. Tyson really uses the rhetorical use of setting up his statements a bit too much compared to other stuff I've seen him do, like when his own Mean Girls kicked Pluto out of planet prom because they wanted some Venus strange. Now, does that mean I will stop watching? That I will instead watch Rich Kids of Beverly Hills while also playing Russian Roulette? Or could it just become a drinking game to do as we ponder just how funny it is that a dude flying around in something called the Spaceship of the Imagination is poking at mankind's earlier foibles with astrology? I think the answer is the Samsung Galaxy Note Pro, powered by Boeing.

ElJeffe · March 2014

enlightenedbum wrote: »

My major issue with the show is that it presents pretty simplistic heroes and villains with as many stereotypes loaded into the villains to make them seem more villainous as possible. Their treatment of Hooke tonight for example. His voice is all raspy; he says ridiculous cliched things; the history is somewhat slanted against him; he's drawn as a balding, stooped, broken asshole. People are not as straightforward as physics.

It's produced by Seth McFarlane. He does not do things like "subtlety" or "nuance" or "not giant fucking strawmen," so there you go.

DasUberEdward · March 2014

TexiKen wrote: »

History is written by the victors, which means Newton and his Mean Girls got to fetch over Hooke pretty good.

Gotta be honest brahs, after the great first episode these two have kind of been streets behind. Tyson really uses the rhetorical use of setting up his statements a bit too much compared to other stuff I've seen him do, like when his own Mean Girls kicked Pluto out of planet prom because they wanted some Venus strange. Now, does that mean I will stop watching? That I will instead watch Rich Kids of Beverly Hills while also playing Russian Roulette? Or could it just become a drinking game to do as we ponder just how funny it is that a dude flying around in something called the Spaceship of the Imagination is poking at mankind's earlier foibles with astrology? I think the answer is the Samsung Galaxy Note Pro, powered by Boeing.

Ohhhhh this post.

this. post. so good.

Jacoby · March 2014

Today I learned that Hooke loved himself some sweet sweet herb.

Newton, on the other hand, wanted to be a Jesus wizard or something.

What I'm trying to say is that I love Hooke so much right now!

Darkewolfe · March 2014

Yeah, Hooke being a polymath when he was and where he was pretty much guarantees that he was a substantial part of literally everything that was going on. That he played politics poorly and ended up a footnote instead of a major name just suggests that he was probably smarter and less capable of marketing himself than his peers. Also, Newton was sort of a shitbag.

Sort of reminds me vaguely of the Tesla/Edison thing in a way, though not directly corollary.

Arteen · March 2014

I like the new series, but it does feel uncomfortably disingenuous sometimes.

a5ehren · March 2014

Darkewolfe wrote: »

Yeah, Hooke being a polymath when he was and where he was pretty much guarantees that he was a substantial part of literally everything that was going on. That he played politics poorly and ended up a footnote instead of a major name just suggests that he was probably smarter and less capable of marketing himself than his peers. Also, Newton was sort of a shitbag.

Sort of reminds me vaguely of the Tesla/Edison thing in a way, though not directly corollary.

Well, when they started talking about him my first thought was "F=kx!". But he's definitely not Newton-level famous.

Brainleech · March 2014

I found out about Hooke while taking CAD and more about him in mechanical engineering but this was college as well
I knew of Newton from far earlier but then people raved how we could see the comet that year and I was very disappointed it was very cloudy

I only got to see a sliver of it in a break in the clouds
I vowed to see it again to live to see it!

Darkewolfe · March 2014

We also only just recently (in the past couple decades) started to realize Hooke was more important than we'd realized.

Seidkona · March 2014

A buncha' Hooke apologists that's what you all are. . . :p

PantsB · March 2014

By his own diary Hooke stole ideas, was addicted to opiates, and fucked his own niece. Dude had issues. Sometimes history is written by the victor because the loser was an asshole but that doesn't mean the history is false. Sometimes the asshole was an asshole and wrong.

Darkewolfe · March 2014

Look, which of us hasn't?

Nyysjan · March 2014

Darkewolfe wrote: »

Look, which of us hasn't?

stolen ideas, been addicted to opiates or fucked our niece?

Darkewolfe · March 2014

Exactly.

Tomanta · March 2014

I take offense to that. I have never been addicted to opiates.

I can quit anytime I want.

Hahnsoo1 · March 2014

Newton was all sorts of batshit crazy. He once stabbed his own eye with a bodkin needle, just to see what would happen:

Also, Hooke's observations of thin slices of cork were noted in most Cell Biology textbooks that I've read, mostly in the "Here's the History of Cell Biology!" section at the beginning of the book, which everyone ignores (since it's not going to be on the test). He's not rockstar famous, but he's in the books.

The Ender · March 2014

My jaw dropped when I saw Hooke's drawing of the moon's surface compared to modern satellite imagery.

That guy built a damn good telescope.

My impression of the man himself is that he was just a hedonist living the Bohemian lifestyle; the caricature in the show was silly, but whatever - I try to filter-out the conjecture about figures of the past, just like in the original Cosmos.

At least the cartoons in McFarlane's version are much more watchable than the cringe-worthy live action pieces in Sagan's version.

Cokomon · March 2014

Take a shot every time you can clearly hear Seth McFarlane's voice (or a voice similar to one of his Family Guy characters) during the animated sequences.

You won't get too drunk, but you should still get a little buzzed.

SteevL · March 2014

I enjoyed the episode. I've always had a bit of a fascination with comets. I have vague memories of looking at Halley's Comet through binoculars, but I really don't remember. I was almost 9 years old. Hopefully I'll be able to see it when it makes its return.

I kind of chuckled at the scene of Newton throwing Hooke's portrait into the fire.

The Ender · March 2014

Newton's personal writings are great in the same way that some of Alex Jones's mad ravings are great.

My God that man was unhinged.

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

DanHibiki · March 2014

The Ender wrote: »

Newton's personal writings are great in the same way that some of Alex Jones's mad ravings are great.

My God that man was unhinged.

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

I guess this is what nerds did before dungeons and dragons was invented.

Mazzyx · March 2014

This episode was pretty good.

Actually I would say the stuff on Halley was better than the Hooke/Newton part. I always forget all the shit Halley did because we focus on his comet prediction so much.

Still I think it was a good episode for what it was trying to do. Again Cosmos is to bring people to science and these stories are a compelling way to do that.

HappylilElf · March 2014

This episode reminded me that I was five last time Halley's Comet swung by and that for some reason I never got to see it

Boo

Zilla360 · March 2014

The Ender wrote: »

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

Eh, it's not that weird. I did that when I was nine, making up ciphers and gibberish alphabet substitutions, all thanks to 'My First Spy Kit'.

Trace · March 2014

Zilla360 wrote: »

The Ender wrote: »

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

Eh, it's not that weird. I did that when I was nine, making up ciphers and gibberish alphabet substitutions, all thanks to 'My First Spy Kit'.

Taught myself to write in reverse like DaVinci did.

I can still do it too, great for writing stuff on kids birthday cards and it was awesome in highschool when I wanted to pass notes to hot girls.

"Well well Mr. Jones, lets see what you wanted to pass along in this note so bad and read it out loud to the... class?"

"Yeah good luck with that teach."

Donnicton · March 2014

The greatest thing ever just showed up on Reddit last night.

Whenever I might think I don't understand something about the universe, this will now forever be my lighthouse, like the Emperor's presence as a beacon guiding me through the warp.

kaid · March 2014

The Ender wrote: »

My jaw dropped when I saw Hooke's drawing of the moon's surface compared to modern satellite imagery.

That guy built a damn good telescope.

My impression of the man himself is that he was just a hedonist living the Bohemian lifestyle; the caricature in the show was silly, but whatever - I try to filter-out the conjecture about figures of the past, just like in the original Cosmos.

At least the cartoons in McFarlane's version are much more watchable than the cringe-worthy live action pieces in Sagan's version.

A good telescope for the time combined with an incredible amount less light pollution goes a long way. They could do more then with less because of the much lower amounts of light pollution than is easily done today unless you go to literally the middle of nowhere.

SteevL · March 2014

I really would like to have a look at a non-light polluted sky again one day. The only time I ever got to see something close to that was when I visited the Grand Canyon with my family around 1985. I had never seen so many stars in my life.

Dedwrekka · March 2014

The Ender wrote: »

Newton's personal writings are great in the same way that some of Alex Jones's mad ravings are great.

My God that man was unhinged.

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

He was an alchemist and a scientist, it's what you did back in the day to stop people from stealing your ideas. It doesn't matter if he intended it only for himself, what mattered was that any a-hole could have walked in and stolen his observations.

Also it should be noted that Dr Tyson has a well established man-crush on Newton.

Penny Arcade

Quick Links

Cosmos, with Neil DeGrasse Tyson - In which we learn that FOX is not the same as Fox News

Posts