Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson: Same Old Product, Bright New Packaging
Evolution News and Views ^ | March 10, 2014 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 03/10/2014 6:58:19 AM PDT by Heartlander

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: cripplecreek
"I don’t have a problem with scientists believing something different, I have a problem with scientists who go out of their way to be as insulting as possible."

Such hateful and arrogant people. I won't bother watching.

Interesting though that the woman says (paraphrasing) "ah, that's fox NEWS, which does in fact do all those things. This if Fox Network which makes the Simpsons and Family Guy!" If I were pitching my show as enlightened and high brow I wouldn't invoke those shows. Just sayin'.

51 posted on 03/10/2014 10:04:40 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Physicists of all people should not rule out a deity.

Modern Physics is completely abstract and goes against “classical” common sense and what our senses tell us. And it keeps getting weirder and more abstract by the decade.

I wonder if it ever occurs to them that our perceptions of the world, including a mathematical equation to explain a physical entity, are not real in the physical sense.

I agree.

I've been following this issue for over ten years now and there seems to be some philosophical implications (regarding the above) that are having an impact on our society. It's the abstract, and peoples unquestioning of the uncertainty that modern Physics/science promotes as truth.

Science has transitioned from a material/reductionist exercise to a purely theoretical one that embraces ideas that are wholly unprovable.

The popularity of a show like "Ancient Aliens" is astounding. Interestingly enough, the show seems to avoid "Darwinian Evolution" in favor of an "Otherworldly" explanation.

The "Embrace of Uncertainty" in science extends into our culture and can be seen in their politics. They have virtually "NO Foundation" for belief in anything other than uncertainty itself.

52 posted on 03/10/2014 10:30:33 AM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie; rktman; CedarDave

Looks like Homer Hickam had some problems with the show starting with the intro by Obama.

‘A little PC crept in’: ‘Rocket Boys’ author Homer Hickam annoyed by politicization in ‘Cosmos’

http://twitchy.com/2014/03/10/a-little-pc-crept-in-rocket-boys-author-homer-hickam-annoyed-by-politicization-in-cosmos/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter


53 posted on 03/10/2014 10:32:30 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

Ooops. Sorry about that.


54 posted on 03/10/2014 10:38:51 AM PDT by ZULU (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
No problem.

It didn't seem right when I read your post, so I looked it up.

55 posted on 03/10/2014 10:52:30 AM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I didn’t watch for one reason despite my love of this sort of thing. I didn’t watch because of this video of the show makers gleefully insulting Christians and conservatives, “Squirrel eating reactionary homophobes”.

They were insulting Fox News and its viewers.

They just had to insert their ugly, gratuitous political cheap shots into a non-political topic.

56 posted on 03/10/2014 10:52:43 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Here is a thought. Maybe a Deity is guiding Physicists and humanity. Divine inspiration?
57 posted on 03/10/2014 11:41:42 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All

this is another over rated media attention seeker. Even without the religious debate intrusion, it is a lost opportunity.

Another jj esque empty reboot.


58 posted on 03/10/2014 11:48:54 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

including “creating star trek voyager” as a resume enhancer is rather foolish. If anything “voyager” is a double net negative.


59 posted on 03/10/2014 11:50:11 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
I've been trying to find it for some time now on video stream without success.

YouTube.

60 posted on 03/10/2014 11:50:58 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Here is a thought. Maybe a Deity is guiding Physicists and humanity. Divine inspiration?

I would suggest that we are guiding ourselves, because we can. Humans, are the only species on our planet capable of this level of exploration.

What would happen if there was an "end" to our understanding?

We are always, and have always been digging deeper and deeper because that is our nature. When signs of the Higgs Boson seem to validate its theory, it opens additional avenues for exploration.

What if those avenues ended ?

What would become of our society if "all that is knowable is known"?

I posit, it will be the end of the world or we can "never" know everything, by design.

61 posted on 03/10/2014 12:01:20 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Don’t know how I missed that, but I’m glad you didn’t! Thanks for the link!


62 posted on 03/10/2014 12:12:38 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Cosmos?

I didn't get time to watch the show, but I did capture this Lunar image and processed the data over the weekend.

59 seconds of video through a Canon 60D, processed, aligned and calibrated into this image.

Center of image is Crater Albategnius. The central peak is about 5000' and the N/E walls of the crater are about 14,000'...The central peak casts a pyramid shaped shadow across the floor of the crater. This crater is not far from the landing site of Apollo 16.

BTW, thanks for that link...

63 posted on 03/10/2014 12:41:43 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

Sometimes I get those foreign names mixed up. I meant the other guy - Savaronola


64 posted on 03/10/2014 12:49:00 PM PDT by ZULU (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

i rewatched the original all afternoon and enjoyed it. i remember whenb it first came on and i had the soundtrack.
i will give the second one a second chance given this was the intro. i did not care for the graphic novel approach and would have preferred real actors.
i did catch “we are all star stuff.” in both. i remember delan in BABYLON 5 saying that too, i think a few episodes after she emerged from the cocoon. jeeez what a geek am i.


65 posted on 03/10/2014 1:19:42 PM PDT by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

It is possible, I guess, that it is all ourselves and not divine inspiration.

The scientific process...

Each new theory builds from a successful experiment which in turn produces more theories that must be proven by experiment, and so on. And of course, a very detailed and meticulous accounting is a must.

However...

But then there are those Gestalt like insights that pop into the head of a scientist while he is working on a solution to a problem. Almost like divine inspiration. :)

I don’t think that it will ever end or we will know everything. The universe, both large and small, is too complex and too big and we are too much a part of it to be able “to see the forest for the trees.”

Just a crazy idea: I do believe that religion and science will merge sometime in the future. That, while trying to understand the universe through science, we find proof of a “creator.”

I also believe that whatever creator might exist only noticed us when we started attributing our existance to him. That we were just another one of his creations until we devoloped the cognitive ability to theorize that he might exist.


66 posted on 03/10/2014 1:24:17 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

Welcome to geekdom!

Cosmos was pretty inspiring. I actually saw Sagan at an event in the early 80s. Back when I was a youngster.

Funny thing too: I recorded the music from Cosmos from a Hearts of Space broadcast around 15 years ago. It is on my mp3 player. I didn’t realize it and recognized all of the songs while I was watching it yesterday. Lol.

I used to listen to HOS while studying. Yes, I know that it is PBS.


67 posted on 03/10/2014 1:41:58 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Just a crazy idea: I do believe that religion and science will merge sometime in the future. That, while trying to understand the universe through science, we find proof of a “creator.”

Personally, I think science and religion are merging together now, as opposed to what secular scientists like DeGrasse and Dawkins want us to believe.

As Physics gets more weird and abstract I see an opening for philosophy to regain lost ground. Science has for many many years rejected the "why" question when it comes to explanations. With a continuing stream of unsatisfying conclusions, many will seek a more solid foundation for their beliefs.

It's interesting and ironic to me that the scientific establishment has claimed the "high ground of reason" while relegating their opposition to "Faith".

68 posted on 03/10/2014 2:10:13 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
I just finished re-watching Carl Sagan's COSMOS while doing my daily elliptical machine exercise.
Given that Obama, a known serial liar and global warming hoax supporter, is introducing the new series, my antennae are up for junk science and fraud this time around.
Interesting that Sagan was on about "nuclear winter" back in the 1980s when the original COSMOS first aired.
69 posted on 03/10/2014 2:21:18 PM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Since the Black "churches" never seem to be around for the culture war (except to support the wrong side), I wonder what kind of "bible" they use. Is it the KJV of Origin of the Species?

I note also that Black "chrstians" who have no objections to blasphemy against G-d can't stand it when they are themselves insulted. Maybe they've all joined the "Fiver Percenters" and now think that they're "gxd?"

70 posted on 03/10/2014 2:49:29 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

This version of Cosmos demonstrated how good the original was. Showing this type of production with commercial breaks is dreadful.

hopefully the next episodes have more science and less cartoons.


71 posted on 03/10/2014 2:59:54 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert
“billions and billions”

In 33 years that number has become "billions of billions".

72 posted on 03/10/2014 3:06:35 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Swede Girl
I wish they had changed the name of this new version and had left the name Cosmos as Sagan's alone. It was so unique, and well-done that it should stand alone as the only Cosmos.

For the hours the Original Cosmos was on it was like listening to a melodious poem, I was enthralled but the commercial interruptions on this version were bad. So much has been learned in the intervening years that this series should be a dead bang hit.

Brian Cox from BBC's "Wonders of the Universe" might have been a better choice for narrator, though Tysons early interaction with Dr. Sagan was touching.

73 posted on 03/10/2014 3:17:12 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
The original Cosmos was a marijuana head trip, and I suspect the new one will be more of the same.

-PJ

74 posted on 03/10/2014 3:32:42 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Bruno wasn't burned because of his scientific theories but because of his heretical theology.

Servetus was burned by the Calvinists of Geneva for views that didn't go so far as Bruno's (though admittedly more heretics were executed in Catholic countries).

The original series wasn't that great either. Too many long scenes of Sagan staring in rapture at the approaching stars.

75 posted on 03/10/2014 3:54:32 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
What should be blindingly obvious to modern Physicists is that our classical perception of nature is completely wrong.

Extrapolating, doesn't that put in question our whole perception of reality including the pseudo reality of the mathematics that describes physics.

For example, it defies common sense that mass is not constant but depends on, of all things, velocity! That time slows down, again depending on velocity. And by simply observing an experiment you can change its outcome. That a particle can behave like a wave and particle and visa versa. And these are the less abstract ideas.

76 posted on 03/10/2014 6:23:42 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

They know all these things and more.

Yet, this is their foundation.

A foundation that is built on uncertainty.

This is where the war is being fought.

The war of ideas and in turn what our political battles will ultimately come down to.

Even the tools of logic and “reason” that they cling to, can’t be explained by them.

Is logic among men an evolutionary oddity?

If so, any and all of both theirs and our foundations are equally valid.

But, their validity as they claim is scientific.

I’ve posted this before, and I find it very enlightening.

Listen carefully.

No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U

I’d be interested in your thoughts.


77 posted on 03/10/2014 6:52:07 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

As a side note.

I’m very interested in the social structure of belief.

How is it that while there are thousands and thousands of examples of a Christian foundation that includes creation which individually are happily accepted by atheists, but when combined to offer a conclusion are rejected without further thought or consideration?

Is it willful ignorance ?


78 posted on 03/10/2014 7:46:38 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Bookmarking.


79 posted on 03/11/2014 2:17:14 AM PDT by RandallFlagg ("I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." --Quigley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pecos; montag813; Zeneta
I have two simple questions for physicists. 1. What existed prior to the big bang? 2. What caused the big bang?
The proper, honest scientific answers to that are "Unknown." and "Unknown." And the reason for those answers is that there is no scientific evidence available to us (yet, or ever) to tell us with any certainty what was there.
Is Tyson a legit astrophysicist? Or an unworthy AA hack, ie, a Colin Powell of physics?
Tyson has a BA in Physics from Harvard and a PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. His research has so far been impeccable.
As Physics gets more weird and abstract I see an opening for philosophy to regain lost ground. Science has for many many years rejected the "why" question when it comes to explanations.
The reason why science rejects the "why" question is because it's irrelevant to the scientific process. It doesn't matter Why something opens, only How. The Why of something is not something that should ever be dealt with by science because Why cannot be measured.
How is it that while there are thousands and thousands of examples of a Christian foundation that includes creation which individually are happily accepted by atheists, but when combined to offer a conclusion are rejected without further thought or consideration?
What examples might you be speaking of?
80 posted on 03/11/2014 4:27:19 AM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
I have always found it ironic that an atheist requires the same leap of faith as a person who believes. They are just leaping in opposite directions.

To state without question that there isn't a God requires that major assumptions are made. Such as knowing everything about everything in a very concrete sense. As we know from modern science, this is impossible. Even what we observe from our senses are misrepresentations of reality. Even the reality that we create by using math and through experimentation to describe Physics is bizarre and extremely abstract and very counter intuitive.

Anyway...

I believe that there might be an emotional and irrational component to an Atheist such as that person might have been hurt by religion at some point and resent religion and faith. For example who is the big atheist in CA who is divorced and lost the custody battle for their daughter and his ex-wife wanted to raise their daughter as a Christian. That is really the issue: he has lost control of his daughter's life and resents everything about his ex-wife. So he calls on lawyers and uses an interpretation of the 1st amendment to get even with his wife.

Anyway, it would make more sense if a non-believer scientist was agnostic. That would be logical.

Scientist are all about logic. If it can't be proven by theory and experimentation, that it can't be accepted as fact. How about the opposite: if it cannot NOT be proven does that still mean that it might still exist? An agnostic and a true scientist would say yes.

I like the infinite monkey theorem to explain my beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

If nature were completely random, then it would take an astronomical amount of time, longer than the existence of the universe, for the “random” sequence of events that produced us to happen. Without a guiding force helping select right path, we wouldn't exist. What is that guiding force?

There are probably millions maybe billions of “random” events that had to happen all in sequence, at the right time, for us to exist.

1. The position of the Earth wrt the Sun.
2. The moon.
3. Water on our planet.
4. The position of our solar system within the milkyway.
5. Jupiter and Saturn in our solar system.
6. Our Sun, size and current time clock. Too soon, or too late and we wouldn't exist.
7. The right mix of elements on Earth.
8. An atmosphere that both protects us and provides us with 02 and CO2 for plants.
10. The right mix of O2 and other gasses.
11. Our magnetic field which protects us from the sun's radiation.
....
1,000,001. The destruction of the dinosaurs.
1,000,002. millions of random genetic mutations with only a few that might be successful. Successful means surviving or not dying off. Failure means some mutation that hinders the being versus helps.
1,000,003. Hunter gatherers forming coops and social groups allowing for spare time to contemplate, develop math and science.
1,000,004. Writing and reading and verbal communication.
1,000,005. etc etc.

Finally, the end result is a thinking being who can question existence.

81 posted on 03/11/2014 7:57:33 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

The truth is that religion has been both positive and negative. But I believe that the negatives are result of man trying to interpret faith and maybe even exploiting it for personal benefit. It is mankind that has changed and manipulated the original Word but this doesn’t change the original Word.

The Word is like Plato’s Chair. It exists perfectly somewhere and our interpretation of it is only an “inferior copy” with many flaws.


82 posted on 03/11/2014 8:11:52 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

You mean you have a problem with the concept of 27 dimensions? ;-) The problem with a postulation such as that is that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says you need to use 28 dimensions to prove the existence of the first 27. Not on my “worry list” for today.


83 posted on 03/11/2014 12:30:27 PM PDT by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Pecos
Lol.

Worried. Me neither. If it is more than my fingers and toes then it is unimportant. My most immediate concern is work, food, family.

Just like the small ant on an ant hill mindlessly moving that tiny crumb from the sidewalk to the den; day after day after day.

84 posted on 03/11/2014 1:44:07 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom

A lot of my work is in risk mangement. If you have a risk (programmatic, technical, etc.), but have not identified the true root cause, you will spend your time and money solving the wrong problem. The classic way to address that aspect of the problem is to keep asking “Why?”. Physicists stop asking that question at a certain point and shrug their shoulders because that is where faith has to kick in. If we were given explicit answers to all of our questions, there would be no need for faith. I’m not saying that is an easy path to take. I’m saying it becomes a necessary step. Sorry for collapsing a major topic into just a few sentences.


85 posted on 03/12/2014 5:31:24 AM PDT by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson