that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.
Holy shit you weren't kidding.
Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.
That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray it the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.
They were following the conceit of machinery to explain how it works through the whole segment on photosynthesis. And while I too ended up thinking about old VHS 3D demos of fish trying to hang out with birds... the actual function of the machine was appropriate, and all the "parts" were accomplishing the atomic dance that comprises photosynthesis.
We may not be the right audience for a simple visual like this, though... but if it helps a younger (or less educated) crowd grasp the concept of the generation of fuel/energy via photosynthesis, then it works.
But they never used any metaphors that simple on the show. Granted, they've never showed such minute processes "realistically" but nothing nearly that bad.
But on the other hand, I'm not sure if the shows target audience would get anything out of something like that without the scene being far longer and in depth than what is possible giving the running time and scope of subject matter of the episode.
Seal on
0
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
Tonight NDgT showed how we figured out the earth was 450 million years old and Linked the Roman holiday Saturnalia to Christmas... On Easter night... No fucks are given...
Don't forget that we also learned about lead poisoning and how big business hired their own scientist to mislead people about the dangers of lead poisoning.
Tonight NDgT showed how we figured out the earth was 450 million years old and Linked the Roman holiday Saturnalia to Christmas... On Easter night... No fucks are given...
You guys think he get death threats?
Oh definitely. A Charismatic black scientist with an agenda to educate is like the freakin boogeyman to those people
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
+2
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
e: The best thing about it is that it concretely shows the value of science for science's sake.
The age of the planet is a neat thing to know, but ultimately does not directly impact our day-to-day lives. But the quest to find the answer led to the discovery of a major health problem which greatly impacted everyone's lives
Kiiiiinda wish they'd tied it to modern climate change deniers a little bit more right at the tail end, but I trust they'll touch on that more in a future episode.
Given the nature of this thread, many of you probably followed the recent Nye-Ham debate from a while back. Nye actually has a nice account and what he thought about the debate up, which is well worth taking the time to have a read through.
dangit page not found, does anyone know if there is a different site that has it?
that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.
Holy shit you weren't kidding.
Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.
That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray it the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.
They were following the conceit of machinery to explain how it works through the whole segment on photosynthesis. And while I too ended up thinking about old VHS 3D demos of fish trying to hang out with birds... the actual function of the machine was appropriate, and all the "parts" were accomplishing the atomic dance that comprises photosynthesis.
We may not be the right audience for a simple visual like this, though... but if it helps a younger (or less educated) crowd grasp the concept of the generation of fuel/energy via photosynthesis, then it works.
Simple visuals work pretty well.
Has anyone tweeted/facebooked/whatever'd this to Neil yet?
Things I am now proud to say I have learned and understand: how we know what the actual age of the earth is. That is a really good feeling, you guys. /takethatcreationistupbringing
Did I miss something, or did they leave out a very critical part of how uranium/lead dating works? Tyson explained how radioactive decay proceeds independently of chemical and physical changes, but radiometric dating requires that the event being dated produces a fixed element (or isotope) ratio so you can calculate how far off the current ratio is. The formation of a generic rock doesn't accomplish this, for exactly the constancy of radioactive decay rates that Tyson just finished explaining. The uranium/lead ratio doesn't tell you anything because you don't know how much of each element was present to begin with--and even if you did, you'd only be able to deduce how long had passed since those elements formed (inside a star), because rock formation isn't the "start" of radioactive decay in those elements.
They key is that zircon crystals, at their formation, will include uranium but not lead; nearby lead is excluded as the zircon crystal grows. This means that the zircon crystal can be relied on to have originally contained zero lead, and the ratio of uranium to lead at the present time therefore tells us how much time has elapsed since the zircon crystallized. We have to know with certainty what the uranium/lead ratio was at some time in the past to deduce how much time has passed since then.
The show got you to go and learn more about science. I'd say it accomplished its goal.
Sure, but that's not really relevant to whether there's an omission in the show's explanation.
A better dismissal would have been that I'm not really the target audience for Cosmos and that the most of the intended audience wouldn't notice the inconsistency or might find the overall message diluted by a full explanation. I suspect Tyson did explain it at one point and that sentence ended up cut for time.
The show got you to go and learn more about science. I'd say it accomplished its goal.
I myself had no idea there was 5 mass extinctions in earth's history.
I'm currently looking up books on the issue.
My favorite extinction event is the Great Oxygen Event where plants killed off a ton of life by making oxygen which also cascaded into an immense ice age. It's just taken a little over 2 billion years for us to take our revenge on the plants
...I have to say, I didn't like how the fight between Patterson & Kehoe was portrayed. Kehoe didn't have 'the same data' at all - he cooked the books & used fraudulent numbers.
Also, I'm pretty sure Kehoe was only a 'science' man in the public eye? He didn't have an actual expertise or accreditation, did he?
With Love and Courage
0
jeffinvaKooglercoming this summerRegistered Userregular
I discovered Sagan during my second year of college. The Demon Haunted World. I got a bit teary-eyed when Neil recounted his dealings with Carl.
...I have to say, I didn't like how the fight between Patterson & Kehoe was portrayed. Kehoe didn't have 'the same data' at all - he cooked the books & used fraudulent numbers.
Also, I'm pretty sure Kehoe was only a 'science' man in the public eye? He didn't have an actual expertise or accreditation, did he?
I don't know that that's ever stopped anyone from being considered an expert at a congressional hearing. Kehoe was a doctor, though, which is why the oil industry was using him--because he was the kind of expert who could cherry-pick and manipulate the data to support their idea of a threshold level under which lead exposure was safe.
It would be nice if there were some stiff punitive measures for being a PhD and then just using your credentials to rake in cash while defrauding the public.
Having your name stripped from your own dissertations, losing the title, maybe also having to pay back any grant money you were given, etc.
With Love and Courage
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I bought the season pass for this show on Amazon Instant, just so I could more easily watch it on my TV without commercials. Unfortunately, they don't post until Tuesday, and they added like 30 seconds of Fox commercials to the beginning and two minutes to the end. That's incredibly bullshit. At least they are skippable.
Special thanks to whoever posted the info on Your Inner Fish. I caught up on that as well last night. I'm very much looking forward to the Creationist backlash for the last episode: "Your Inner Monkey."
for those that really can't stand to watch the show with all those ads and those that just want to be able to re-watch at will, Cosmos be available on Blu-Ray & DVD from June 10th and is available for pre-order now.
It would be nice if there were some stiff punitive measures for being a PhD and then just using your credentials to rake in cash while defrauding the public.
Having your name stripped from your own dissertations, losing the title, maybe also having to pay back any grant money you were given, etc.
I tend to agree. I has heartened when Dr. Wakefield (fraudulent vaccine ->Autism study guy) not only had his work retracted but had his medical license revoked. When you trade on your position of authority to deceive the public, the consequences should reflect the trust you've betrayed. Otherwise, the very position of scientific, or any kind of knowledgeable authority, being a trustworthy source, is terribly undermined. And the results (see: all the people who have not vaccinated their kiddoes) are dangerous.
It would be nice if there were some stiff punitive measures for being a PhD and then just using your credentials to rake in cash while defrauding the public.
Having your name stripped from your own dissertations, losing the title, maybe also having to pay back any grant money you were given, etc.
I tend to agree. I has heartened when Dr. Wakefield (fraudulent vaccine ->Autism study guy) not only had his work retracted but had his medical license revoked. When you trade on your position of authority to deceive the public, the consequences should reflect the trust you've betrayed. Otherwise, the very position of scientific, or any kind of knowledgeable authority, being a trustworthy source, is terribly undermined. And the results (see: all the people who have not vaccinated their kiddoes) are dangerous.
It almost never really seems to be as cut and dry as those cases. It's pretty hard to determine sometimes if they intentionally compromised their research or if they were swayed by their preconceived notions.
True. And I'm not suggesting that penalties be thrown about at random, but in cases where it is cut-and-dried or can be shown that evidence was obviously cherry-picked or other evidence intentionally ignored, then those are cases where there ought to be penalties. Certainly preconceived notions can cause problems unwittingly, and I would not advocate for penalizing someone for not adequately controlling for their own preconceived notions.
Edit: And there are cases where I would advocate for a removal of an article that turned out to be compromised by undue bias but not for permanent or ongoing penalties for the author.
It almost never really seems to be as cut and dry as those cases. It's pretty hard to determine sometimes if they intentionally compromised their research or if they were swayed by their preconceived notions.
There are some criteria that can used to make strong cases for intentional fraud:
1) Did you use results in a study that appear to have been faked in order to pass peer review?
2) Did you use your apparently faked study results as a lobbying platform for an ideological cause?
3) Did you accept money/gifts as a result of the above?
If [y], hi there, we'll be taking back that PhD. You'll get an invoice in the mail for the sum of money you took from the government in order to bake-up a fake study that ultimately hurt public interests.
Also, I don't particularly care if you were 'swayed' by your own political ideology and the money wasn't the sole reason that you faked a study. The result's the same.
I think my favorite episodes are ones like this, with a strong historical story running through it. And damn, combining this episode and that motherjones article? Even if we assume that a lot of this was simplified, Clair Patterson could have been the most important figures in modern history.
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
+2
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Pretty good episode. Interesting to note that Neil was originally a part of the writing process, but as he sat there with Soter and Ann Druyan, he realized he was a third wheel and backed away.
I still haven't watched last week's episode of Cosmos.
Posts
But they never used any metaphors that simple on the show. Granted, they've never showed such minute processes "realistically" but nothing nearly that bad.
On one hand I was hoping we'd see something less like we got and more like(relevant action starts at 53s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeD9idmcX0w#t=53
But on the other hand, I'm not sure if the shows target audience would get anything out of something like that without the scene being far longer and in depth than what is possible giving the running time and scope of subject matter of the episode.
You guys think he get death threats?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
God is one thing (he isn't real... maybe...) But Big oil? those guys are very real!
Okay time to burn down this thread and get rid of all the evidence and Repent to our Oil Overlords.
Oh definitely. A Charismatic black scientist with an agenda to educate is like the freakin boogeyman to those people
e: The best thing about it is that it concretely shows the value of science for science's sake.
The age of the planet is a neat thing to know, but ultimately does not directly impact our day-to-day lives. But the quest to find the answer led to the discovery of a major health problem which greatly impacted everyone's lives
Kiiiiinda wish they'd tied it to modern climate change deniers a little bit more right at the tail end, but I trust they'll touch on that more in a future episode.
By using the power of earth bending.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
dangit page not found, does anyone know if there is a different site that has it?
EDIT: ha, no it's just Aegeri who typoed the link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate
funnily enough this article just popped up on the BBC. very timely.
Has anyone tweeted/facebooked/whatever'd this to Neil yet?
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
They key is that zircon crystals, at their formation, will include uranium but not lead; nearby lead is excluded as the zircon crystal grows. This means that the zircon crystal can be relied on to have originally contained zero lead, and the ratio of uranium to lead at the present time therefore tells us how much time has elapsed since the zircon crystallized. We have to know with certainty what the uranium/lead ratio was at some time in the past to deduce how much time has passed since then.
I myself had no idea there was 5 mass extinctions in earth's history.
I'm currently looking up books on the issue.
A better dismissal would have been that I'm not really the target audience for Cosmos and that the most of the intended audience wouldn't notice the inconsistency or might find the overall message diluted by a full explanation. I suspect Tyson did explain it at one point and that sentence ended up cut for time.
My favorite extinction event is the Great Oxygen Event where plants killed off a ton of life by making oxygen which also cascaded into an immense ice age. It's just taken a little over 2 billion years for us to take our revenge on the plants
Also, I'm pretty sure Kehoe was only a 'science' man in the public eye? He didn't have an actual expertise or accreditation, did he?
I don't know that that's ever stopped anyone from being considered an expert at a congressional hearing. Kehoe was a doctor, though, which is why the oil industry was using him--because he was the kind of expert who could cherry-pick and manipulate the data to support their idea of a threshold level under which lead exposure was safe.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Having your name stripped from your own dissertations, losing the title, maybe also having to pay back any grant money you were given, etc.
Also StarTalk, hosted by Neil Tyson. This week he interviewed Steven Soter, and he's hoping to have Ann Druyan on soon.
Special thanks to whoever posted the info on Your Inner Fish. I caught up on that as well last night. I'm very much looking forward to the Creationist backlash for the last episode: "Your Inner Monkey."
Awesome!
*makes a fist* And here they are.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I tend to agree. I has heartened when Dr. Wakefield (fraudulent vaccine ->Autism study guy) not only had his work retracted but had his medical license revoked. When you trade on your position of authority to deceive the public, the consequences should reflect the trust you've betrayed. Otherwise, the very position of scientific, or any kind of knowledgeable authority, being a trustworthy source, is terribly undermined. And the results (see: all the people who have not vaccinated their kiddoes) are dangerous.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
It almost never really seems to be as cut and dry as those cases. It's pretty hard to determine sometimes if they intentionally compromised their research or if they were swayed by their preconceived notions.
Edit: And there are cases where I would advocate for a removal of an article that turned out to be compromised by undue bias but not for permanent or ongoing penalties for the author.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
There are some criteria that can used to make strong cases for intentional fraud:
1) Did you use results in a study that appear to have been faked in order to pass peer review?
2) Did you use your apparently faked study results as a lobbying platform for an ideological cause?
3) Did you accept money/gifts as a result of the above?
If [y], hi there, we'll be taking back that PhD. You'll get an invoice in the mail for the sum of money you took from the government in order to bake-up a fake study that ultimately hurt public interests.
Also, I don't particularly care if you were 'swayed' by your own political ideology and the money wasn't the sole reason that you faked a study. The result's the same.
Pretty good episode. Interesting to note that Neil was originally a part of the writing process, but as he sat there with Soter and Ann Druyan, he realized he was a third wheel and backed away.
I still haven't watched last week's episode of Cosmos.