My poor namesake! You heathens! (Real name is Augustin :P )
I just caught up on this last episode, blew my fucking mind with how interconnected things are, from tectonics, to meteors, to Venus and Jupiter, and changes in climate to the lack of trees in the Savanna.
So awesome.
I mentioned it in the History thread, but I recently rediscovered the Connections series and it's amazing going back to that now after watching Cosmos and seeing how one person mentioned in one series influenced the work of another in the other series and how it really is all connected and built on top of each other.
But that's mostly people based and not just "holy shit!" stuff in general.
It's awesome that Connections is on Youtube
But it looks like a whole different era to me
+1
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Connections was 78, I believe while 2 and 3 were in the mid 90s, but yeah they are dated on the modern stuff. Still, I loved when they mentioned some things about Copernicus and some Dutch cartographers in passing, and I was all "Hey! I know why/how they got to that point!" since Burke glosses over a lot of stuff to keep the connection thread between things.
Two things:
1) my uncle is actually a physicist at the Bureau of Standards. Edit: this is re: the podcast, since Tyson talks about the Bureau.
2) I tend to agree with Tyson re: science and philosophy. The job of the scientist is not to examine philosophy any more than my job as a humanities teacher is to evaluate quantum physics. I don't think his statements in any way make him a "philistine." Deep philosophical questions have no place in the realm of the scientist. Frankly, even for the humanities or social science practitioner, philosophy can end up becoming a whole, big bunch of wheel-spinning. Philosophy is really at its best when it is used to understand where a writer or thinker is coming from or to understand the cultural foundations of social ethics and such. I would agree with Tyson that it easily becomes an obstacle in the realm of science.
I look back at old philosophers and note that they never seem to accomplish much aside from writing long, whiny diatribes about people who did accomplish things.
They're almost like the ancient precursor to Reddit.
So I'm looking at episode synopsis of episode 9 on the Cosmos app and it's not ringing a bell...I'm pretty damn sure I tuned in every single week to watch this...maybe I missed one somehow or just forgot. I'll have to load it up on Hulu later.
If you watched episode 9, you'd probably remember it. It very directly, very bluntly addresses the issue of climate change, and essentially ends with, "So. Who wants to play chicken with the fossil record and see if we're going to be just another set of interesting rocks set in some strata?"
...I hope this series does a Mars episode. 'Blues for a Red Planet' was one of my favorite original Cosmos episodes.
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Two things:
1) my uncle is actually a physicist at the Bureau of Standards. Edit: this is re: the podcast, since Tyson talks about the Bureau.
2) I tend to agree with Tyson re: science and philosophy. The job of the scientist is not to examine philosophy any more than my job as a humanities teacher is to evaluate quantum physics. I don't think his statements in any way make him a "philistine." Deep philosophical questions have no place in the realm of the scientist. Frankly, even for the humanities or social science practitioner, philosophy can end up becoming a whole, big bunch of wheel-spinning. Philosophy is really at its best when it is used to understand where a writer or thinker is coming from or to understand the cultural foundations of social ethics and such. I would agree with Tyson that it easily becomes an obstacle in the realm of science.
I look back at old philosophers and note that they never seem to accomplish much aside from writing long, whiny diatribes about people who did accomplish things.
They're almost like the ancient precursor to Reddit.
He seemed more influential, though - that dude gets quoted everywhere.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Greek philosophy got so stuck up its own ass on contemplation of ideals and perfection and crap that it came to the conclusion that if reality didn't correspond with whatever the philosophers made up while rubbing their dicks between the thighs of prepubescent boys, then reality was wrong. Once you reject reality itself all you have left is a lot of mental masturbation - often fun but kinda useless.
So hey classy gents! I was putting of watching this stuff (because reasons) and just watched episode 3, which is the earliest available on the website, with the kiddo.
Are we missing much having not currently seen 1 and 2? I mean, eventually we will watch them, just right now I didn't find an easy way to view them.
PSN: jfrofl
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
So hey classy gents! I was putting of watching this stuff (because reasons) and just watched episode 3, which is the earliest available on the website, with the kiddo.
Are we missing much having not currently seen 1 and 2? I mean, eventually we will watch them, just right now I didn't find an easy way to view them.
Episode 1 is EXTREMELY top level, and kind of samples at stuff that gets greater clarity throughout the entire season. It will feel super repetitive watching it after you have seen everything, in my opinion.
Episode 2 was basically NDG saying "hey folks, evolution is real and this is why," using some pretty compelling and easy-to-understand things. It was p great.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Also Nietzsche, but I suppose he's more contemporary.
EDIT: Oh, and Zeno. My God, let's not forget about Zeno.
*shudder*
What are you thinking of when you say those authors wrote 'long whiney diatribes' about 'people who did accomplish things'?
I have little enough use for classical philosophy, but that's not exactly where I'd lodge my criticism.
And, regarding Tyson and his remarks on philosophy and science, there have been multiple responses on behalf of ruffled philosophers. So far, the best appears to be by way of Massimo Pigliucci, and is available here (Tyson also seems to think it the best, as indicated in the postscript, although he still doesn't appear to agree).
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
Wow. Lots of interest here. I presume it all derives from the blogosphere reaction to my several comedic sentences uttered to the jaded philosophy major Host Chris Hardwick of the comedic "Nerdist" podcast. Whole academic tracts were written in critique of this -- much to my surprise. One even called me a Philistine -- in the title. My more formally expressed views on philosophy are here, seen by 750,000 people, but apparently not any of the people criticizing my appearance on the Nerdist: http://bit.ly/1ouBEJA
–NDTyson
I believe the proper academic term for that clip is, 'rekt'.
I'm not sure why you say that. Tyson basically said that philosophers aren't contributing to the frontier of the physical sciences, which is... well, duh. They are philosophers, not scientists. And Dawkins got called out for saying something outright false. From my perspective, it was a pretty embarrassing moment for both Tyson and Dawkins.
Hachface on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited May 2014
Pigliucci quotes (in full) and responds to Tyson's comment from that Q&A in his post. As I see it, his three most essential points, arranged in ascending order of significance as direct replies to Tyson, are that:
1) Although Tyson speaks derisively of 'the armchair' as opposed to the laboratory when it comes to physical science, no one should deny that there is a lot of purely armchair work to be done in modern physical science, at very least because theoretical physical science is heavily enmeshed in complicated mathematics.
2) Although Tyson lists the end date of philosophical contribution to the frontiers of science at the advent of quantum mechanics, since then philosophy has 'spun off' both linguistics and cognitive science (and remains pretty enmeshed with the latter).
3) And there are, in fact, technically sophisticated collaborations between Philosophers, Scientists, and Mathematicians on current topics in the sciences--"on everything from evolutionary theory and species concepts to interpretations of quantum mechanics and the structure of superstring theory."
Massimo is himself a one-man example here, having PhDs both in Philosophy and Evolutionary Biology, a Doctorate in Genetics, and having done work on philosophical issues in biology. A sample abstract I culled from his philpapers profile after all of 1 seconds of search:
The (Extended) Evolutionary Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.
I don't really have much of a dog in this debate. As Tyson says, there's plenty of legitimate and interesting stuff for philosophers to do without ever touching on current science--and since that's mostly the stuff that I do, it's neither the case that I'm an expert here nor that my livelihood depends on how things shake out. But I nonetheless feel compelled to chime in, especially as I (and Tyson, by report) feel like Massimo more or less has a handle on things:
Postscript: I sent a preview of this essay to Neil, and a frank, civil email exchange has followed it over the past few days. However, I’m afraid neither one of us has really conceded an inch to the other’s position. We’ll see if we can do better in person over a couple of drinks.
As for a possible reply from Neil, I have, of course, invited him to submit one. Here is his reply, verbatim: “I generally reply to things if, and only if, they are writing about something that I judge to be untrue about me, or that they have misunderstood about what I have said. Neither is the case with you.”
Pigliucci quotes (in full) and responds to Tyson's comment from that Q&A in his post. As I see it, his three most essential points, arranged in ascending order of significance as direct replies to Tyson, are that:
1) Although Tyson speaks derisively of 'the armchair' as opposed to the laboratory when it comes to physical science, no one should deny that there is a lot of purely armchair work to be done in modern physical science, at very least because theoretical physical science is heavily enmeshed in complicated mathematics.
Well, hold on. You have mathematical formulas for discoveries, sure. However even with the math you don't have a sound scientific concept until it's been tested. String Theory has a lot of math behind it, so much that there's multiple versions of it, however it isn't widely accepted because there is no method for testing it as of yet. Tyson is simply pointing out that parts of science have moved far beyond what you can explain through personal experience.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Fat Old Guy: They are closing the philosophy department because it hasn't made any useful contributions.
Tyson: Well... you haven't. You haven't since we moved outside of the realm of armchair speculation.
Fat Old Guy seemed pretty mad when he didn't get the validation he was looking for.
This is not an accurate summary of the exchange, since Tyson explicitly concedes that philosophers have plenty of contributions to make--" plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do"--but just denies that they have much to say about the frontiers of science as such. That's far from "you have no contributions to make." Further, I would be remarkably surprised if you actually knew much about the political situation at Howard that led to the near-closing of the department which the questioner initially references (Howard did not, in the end, go through with that plan).
Pigliucci quotes (in full) and responds to Tyson's comment from that Q&A in his post. As I see it, his three most essential points, arranged in ascending order of significance as direct replies to Tyson, are that:
1) Although Tyson speaks derisively of 'the armchair' as opposed to the laboratory when it comes to physical science, no one should deny that there is a lot of purely armchair work to be done in modern physical science, at very least because theoretical physical science is heavily enmeshed in complicated mathematics.
Well, hold on. You have mathematical formulas for discoveries, sure. However even with the math you don't have a sound scientific concept until it's been tested. String Theory has a lot of math behind it, so much that there's multiple versions of it, however it isn't widely accepted because there is no method for testing it as of yet. Tyson is simply pointing out that parts of science have moved far beyond what you can explain through personal experience.
Pigliucci is not saying that experimental science is obsolete. He is just emphasizing that there is also conceptual work that needs to be done, and which is much less directly related to any 'laboratory' setting.
Understanding what string theory even says, let alone whether it adequately counts as science (or rather is 'not even wrong') is a prime area where philosophy of science is actually--or, more weakly, has the opportunity to be--relevant to developing science. The extent to which it actually plays a role is dependent on whether these people actually get together and talk to each other.
MrMister on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Now google has failed me and yet surprised me
I was looking for a .gif of the creation of the Mediterranean. They showed the creation of it on Cosmos
But I did learn about various cruise ships they ply it
But what I was looking for was someone claims they show the black sea being formed at the same time
[it was not}
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Further interesting discussion of Tyson on philosophy and science at Newapps, a blog mostly frequented by professional philosophers and graduate students. Of particular interest in the comments are those by Daves Wallace and Baker , at 4 and 10-11.
The video is 4 years old, how is this just now a thing?
Dedwrekka on
0
Options
jeffinvaKooglercoming this summerRegistered Userregular
In college I discovered The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan and it changed my life (really, my entire worldview). I was watching my nephews watch this new show and could see the gears turning in their little heads. It was pretty magical. Then it went to commercial and the younger one stuck his butt on his brothers head and farted on him.
+13
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The video is 4 years old, how is this just now a thing?
That video is four years old, but more recently (March 7th) Tyson went on the Nerdist podcast and made some similar, but somewhat more intemperate, remarks about the philosophy of science. In wake of getting some heat over them, Tyson has directed attention to the older video, saying it represents his views more adequately than the offhand comments he made on a comedy show.
The transcript from the Nerdist show, with a little editorializing, is reproduced in the Pugliucci piece I linked earlier, and also in this spoiler:
Neil made his latest disparaging remarks about philosophy as a guest on the Nerdist podcast [4], following a statement by one of the hosts, who said that he majored in philosophy. Neil’s comeback was: “That can really mess you up.” The host then added: “I always felt like maybe there was a little too much question asking in philosophy [of science]?” And here is the rest of the pertinent dialogue:
dGT: I agree.
interviewer: At a certain point it’s just futile.
dGT: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it’s, what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?
(another) interviewer: I think a healthy balance of both is good.
dGT: Well, I’m still worried even about a healthy balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can’t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” is a pointless delay in our progress.
[insert predictable joke by one interviewer, imitating the clapping of one hand]
dGT: How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind. You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that. [Note to the reader: I, like Neil, live and work in Manhattan, and I can assure you that I am quite adept at crossing the perilous streets of the metropolis.]
interviewer [not one to put too fine a point on things, apparently]: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what crap is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper? [5]
dGT [laughing]: Of course I think we all agree you turned out okay.
interviewer: Philosophy was a good Major for comedy, I think, because it does get you to ask a lot of ridiculous questions about things.
dGT: No, you need people to laugh at your ridiculous questions.
interviewers: It’s a bottomless pit. It just becomes nihilism.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the actual recent episodes. I do admit, I might have to go over them again, as the science aspects tend to blend between episodes, but the historical and speculative elements always wow me. I loved his supremely optimistic look at the next "universal calendar year," though as always, I deny the certainty that all the neat stuff will happen after our lifetimes. Natural lifetimes, maybe, but if Ray Kurzweil thinks he'll live forever, and I have a good thirty years on him to spare, why not?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
So I had a thought the other day.
The episode on the lead industry...I have a feeling it could have been made almost beat for beat about fracking, today. But with no happy ending (as yet *knock wood*).
I've been looking online, but I haven't seen anyone erupt yet over the mentions of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Flood. I know that literature before the Bible is common knowledge, but I know it wasn't exactly talked about in my fundamentalist upbringing.
I've been looking online, but I haven't seen anyone erupt yet over the mentions of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Flood. I know that literature before the Bible is common knowledge, but I know it wasn't exactly talked about in my fundamentalist upbringing.
In my experience in the Bible belt, most people have no concept of what happened before or after Gilgamesh's flood, because that's all anyone focuses on.
So, the usual statements are "Gilgamesh means Noah in [ignorance verging on racism] language" or "This proves Noah if other cultures recorded it".
I'm bummed that we have to wait until June 1 to see the next episode. I'm willing to bet that there will be much butthurt from certain shitty groups over that episode.
As for last weeks, gonna agree with Dedrwrekka, the fundies are probably doing mental gymnastics, to try and fool themselves into believing the Gilgamesh thing proves their world view.
I'll have to see if I can get the series on blu-ray fairly soon after release. My budget is limited, but I'd like to support this kind of programming. Maybe it'll prompt the History Channel, Science Channel, TLC and Discovery to bring in more actual science and history programs and deep six a bunch of the non-science/history shit they've been picking up over the years.
Posts
I mentioned it in the History thread, but I recently rediscovered the Connections series and it's amazing going back to that now after watching Cosmos and seeing how one person mentioned in one series influenced the work of another in the other series and how it really is all connected and built on top of each other.
But that's mostly people based and not just "holy shit!" stuff in general.
But it looks like a whole different era to me
I look back at old philosophers and note that they never seem to accomplish much aside from writing long, whiny diatribes about people who did accomplish things.
They're almost like the ancient precursor to Reddit.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
...I hope this series does a Mars episode. 'Blues for a Red Planet' was one of my favorite original Cosmos episodes.
Which philosophers are you thinking of?
Also Nietzsche, but I suppose he's more contemporary.
EDIT: Oh, and Zeno. My God, let's not forget about Zeno.
*shudder*
He seemed more influential, though - that dude gets quoted everywhere.
Are we missing much having not currently seen 1 and 2? I mean, eventually we will watch them, just right now I didn't find an easy way to view them.
Episode 1 is EXTREMELY top level, and kind of samples at stuff that gets greater clarity throughout the entire season. It will feel super repetitive watching it after you have seen everything, in my opinion.
Episode 2 was basically NDG saying "hey folks, evolution is real and this is why," using some pretty compelling and easy-to-understand things. It was p great.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
The whole series comes out on DVD in a few weeks too, if you're willing to wait.
What are you thinking of when you say those authors wrote 'long whiney diatribes' about 'people who did accomplish things'?
I have little enough use for classical philosophy, but that's not exactly where I'd lodge my criticism.
And, regarding Tyson and his remarks on philosophy and science, there have been multiple responses on behalf of ruffled philosophers. So far, the best appears to be by way of Massimo Pigliucci, and is available here (Tyson also seems to think it the best, as indicated in the postscript, although he still doesn't appear to agree).
Hulu has all of them, they just release one day after Fox.
I dunno if I want to get Cosmos on DVD or use this as an excuse to finally pick up a Blu-Ray Player.
Or just buy the damn thing digitally. Ugh. Sucks.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Which is a link to a video from 2010:
edit:
Apparently, that youtube video doesn't start off where it should. The part it's supposed to begin at is at 62m:47s.
I'm not sure why you say that. Tyson basically said that philosophers aren't contributing to the frontier of the physical sciences, which is... well, duh. They are philosophers, not scientists. And Dawkins got called out for saying something outright false. From my perspective, it was a pretty embarrassing moment for both Tyson and Dawkins.
1) Although Tyson speaks derisively of 'the armchair' as opposed to the laboratory when it comes to physical science, no one should deny that there is a lot of purely armchair work to be done in modern physical science, at very least because theoretical physical science is heavily enmeshed in complicated mathematics.
2) Although Tyson lists the end date of philosophical contribution to the frontiers of science at the advent of quantum mechanics, since then philosophy has 'spun off' both linguistics and cognitive science (and remains pretty enmeshed with the latter).
3) And there are, in fact, technically sophisticated collaborations between Philosophers, Scientists, and Mathematicians on current topics in the sciences--"on everything from evolutionary theory and species concepts to interpretations of quantum mechanics and the structure of superstring theory."
Massimo is himself a one-man example here, having PhDs both in Philosophy and Evolutionary Biology, a Doctorate in Genetics, and having done work on philosophical issues in biology. A sample abstract I culled from his philpapers profile after all of 1 seconds of search:
I don't really have much of a dog in this debate. As Tyson says, there's plenty of legitimate and interesting stuff for philosophers to do without ever touching on current science--and since that's mostly the stuff that I do, it's neither the case that I'm an expert here nor that my livelihood depends on how things shake out. But I nonetheless feel compelled to chime in, especially as I (and Tyson, by report) feel like Massimo more or less has a handle on things:
Tyson: Well... you haven't. You haven't since we moved outside of the realm of armchair speculation.
Fat Old Guy seemed pretty mad when he didn't get the validation he was looking for.
This is not an accurate summary of the exchange, since Tyson explicitly concedes that philosophers have plenty of contributions to make--" plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do"--but just denies that they have much to say about the frontiers of science as such. That's far from "you have no contributions to make." Further, I would be remarkably surprised if you actually knew much about the political situation at Howard that led to the near-closing of the department which the questioner initially references (Howard did not, in the end, go through with that plan).
Pigliucci is not saying that experimental science is obsolete. He is just emphasizing that there is also conceptual work that needs to be done, and which is much less directly related to any 'laboratory' setting.
Understanding what string theory even says, let alone whether it adequately counts as science (or rather is 'not even wrong') is a prime area where philosophy of science is actually--or, more weakly, has the opportunity to be--relevant to developing science. The extent to which it actually plays a role is dependent on whether these people actually get together and talk to each other.
Planet Earth was the series that made me buy a blu-ray player. If you don't already have one for that, or Human Planet, or Blue Planet...
I mean, it's Cosmos. Your excuses have really run out.
I was looking for a .gif of the creation of the Mediterranean. They showed the creation of it on Cosmos
But I did learn about various cruise ships they ply it
But what I was looking for was someone claims they show the black sea being formed at the same time
[it was not}
That video is four years old, but more recently (March 7th) Tyson went on the Nerdist podcast and made some similar, but somewhat more intemperate, remarks about the philosophy of science. In wake of getting some heat over them, Tyson has directed attention to the older video, saying it represents his views more adequately than the offhand comments he made on a comedy show.
The transcript from the Nerdist show, with a little editorializing, is reproduced in the Pugliucci piece I linked earlier, and also in this spoiler:
dGT: I agree.
interviewer: At a certain point it’s just futile.
dGT: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it’s, what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?
(another) interviewer: I think a healthy balance of both is good.
dGT: Well, I’m still worried even about a healthy balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can’t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” is a pointless delay in our progress.
[insert predictable joke by one interviewer, imitating the clapping of one hand]
dGT: How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind. You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that. [Note to the reader: I, like Neil, live and work in Manhattan, and I can assure you that I am quite adept at crossing the perilous streets of the metropolis.]
interviewer [not one to put too fine a point on things, apparently]: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what crap is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper? [5]
dGT [laughing]: Of course I think we all agree you turned out okay.
interviewer: Philosophy was a good Major for comedy, I think, because it does get you to ask a lot of ridiculous questions about things.
dGT: No, you need people to laugh at your ridiculous questions.
interviewers: It’s a bottomless pit. It just becomes nihilism.
dGT: nihilism is a kind of philosophy.
To be fair, the excuse to get a Blu-Ray player has been around for years.
It's called Planet Earth
The episode on the lead industry...I have a feeling it could have been made almost beat for beat about fracking, today. But with no happy ending (as yet *knock wood*).
In my experience in the Bible belt, most people have no concept of what happened before or after Gilgamesh's flood, because that's all anyone focuses on.
So, the usual statements are "Gilgamesh means Noah in [ignorance verging on racism] language" or "This proves Noah if other cultures recorded it".
As for last weeks, gonna agree with Dedrwrekka, the fundies are probably doing mental gymnastics, to try and fool themselves into believing the Gilgamesh thing proves their world view.
I'll have to see if I can get the series on blu-ray fairly soon after release. My budget is limited, but I'd like to support this kind of programming. Maybe it'll prompt the History Channel, Science Channel, TLC and Discovery to bring in more actual science and history programs and deep six a bunch of the non-science/history shit they've been picking up over the years.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.