Does Anyone Out There Watch "Cosmos"?

[Thomas988]

Cosmos, if you're wondering, is a new-ish science TV show. It's awesome! However, hardly anyone around where I live seems to actually watch this show. So, I've been wondering, does anyone else in the KSP community watch Cosmos?

[Starwhip]

The answer is greater than one.

Perhaps, even, greater than "two", whatever that is...

Yes, I watch it. I've been watching it for years. Almost had the whole of the original series under my belt when the new one came on. I have to say, I'm enjoying the CGI they incorporated: it looks great and would attract people who normally don't enjoy "science".

[John Crichton]

Great program to promote science and critical thinking. Even better that they're airing it on Fox...because the average Fox viewer sure needs a healthy dose of science.

[Starwhip]

Yes! The answer was greater than two!

And yes, the average person watching Fox does indeed need some SCIENCE!!! Prepare the goo!

[Tex]

I desperately want to watch Sagan's original (well, both, honestly) but it's usually out of my reach. I might have to use a bootleg YouTube copy XD

[Dkmdlb]

I like it. But it's not as good as I had hoped. It's a little too goofy for my tastes.

[John Crichton]

I like it. But it's not as good as I had hoped. It's a little too goofy for my tastes.

Not easy to balance education with the need to entertain people. They need a bit of "goofiness" to keep those Fox viewers entertained.

[Dkmdlb]

I know. It's sad.

[relin]

I desperately want to watch Sagan's original (well, both, honestly) but it's usually out of my reach. I might have to use a bootleg YouTube copy XD

Hulu had the entirety of Sagan's show, but it seems that was temporary to prepare for the new version. That's disappointing, I only got to watch the first episode.

[John Crichton]

Hulu had the entirety of Sagan's show, but it seems that was temporary to prepare for the new version. That's disappointing, I only got to watch the first episode.

Most of them are on Youtube and/or Dailymotion

First episode

Second episode

Just search for "Cosmos, Sagan, stream, Episode X" on Google and you'll get plenty of good links

The same goes for NDT's new show...

[vger]

Not easy to balance education with the need to entertain people. They need a bit of "goofiness" to keep those Fox viewers entertained.

Could be worse. It could be the Fantas-err... Discovery Channel.

[John Crichton]

Could be worse. It could be the Fantas-err... Discovery Channel.

"History" channel

It's in HD though...so that's something...

By the way, since we're talking about Tyson...here's a great discussion between Tyson and Stephen Colbert:

Edited April 28, 2014 by John Crichton

[Nuke]

seen the original with carl sagan back in the day, seen all the so far aired episodes of the new one.

[Thomas988]

Woop woop! I've sparked a conversation!

[vger]

Anyhoo, more relevant to the convo, I really wanted to see it when it first aired, but my wife took horribly sick around that time, which gave me about as much motivation as a slug stricken with mononucleosis.

Hopefully they'll do a marathon at some point and I can just record the whole bloody thing.

[pxi]

I've been watching it, I'm glad it exists, but honestly I preferred the original series.

[Horn Brain]

I'm really enjoying it. In fact I've been blogging about it and trying to use little oversimplifications used in the show as jumping off points to learn more about some of the things brought up in each episode. There are some really fascinating things you can learn if you just keep your eyes open during the show.

This goes hand in hand with what I view as the show's goal: It's not so much about teaching people all kinds of crazy facts as it is exposing them to the breadth of the knowledge that science provides us, and especially pointing out the frontiers. Every child who grows up in a "FOX family" and who sees this show and breaks out of their tiny little life bubble and discovers the universe is a victory for all of humanity. I can't wait to learn the things that some of these kids will grow up to discover about our universe.

[John Crichton]

I'm really enjoying it. In fact I've been blogging about it and trying to use little oversimplifications used in the show as jumping off points to learn more about some of the things brought up in each episode. There are some really fascinating things you can learn if you just keep your eyes open during the show.

This goes hand in hand with what I view as the show's goal: It's not so much about teaching people all kinds of crazy facts as it is exposing them to the breadth of the knowledge that science provides us, and especially pointing out the frontiers. Every child who grows up in a "FOX family" and who sees this show and breaks out of their tiny little life bubble and discovers the universe is a victory for all of humanity. I can't wait to learn the things that some of these kids will grow up to discover about our universe.

Yup. I think Tyson's goal is to teach people how scientists THINK and how they approach issues...and why that approach is the most logical/rational approach. He wants to promote critical thinking and make people question their pre-conceived beliefs.

Judging from the outcry of the religious fundamentalists in the US, it seems to be working...because omfg they seem worried

[lajoswinkler]

I like it. But it's not as good as I had hoped. It's a little too goofy for my tastes.

I've noticed the goofiness, too, and I'm not sure how to comment it. Maybe it's for the best.

Not easy to balance education with the need to entertain people. They need a bit of "goofiness" to keep those Fox viewers entertained.

I think you're talking about FOX News viewers, which are typically rightwinged, fundamentalistic twats. FOX brought us The Simpsons, Futurama, just to name the few. The essence of those shows was quite the opposite of what those twats have in their brains.

[Azimech]

Yes, love it. Both original and new. But there is something I miss in the new one: bbillions and bbillions. Carls characteristic storytelling, rhythm and voice is ... iconic.

[Albert VDS]

Good thing about the new Cosmos is the way they try to keep the viewers watching, not giving answers straight away.

It's visuals are also a positive thing, I was just awe struck when they showed Jupiter in the first episode.

The animations, instead of life actors, is a nice surprise and not something I thought that it would work well.

But the best thing is that it tells lesser know stories and/or details. Like the episode about Clair Cameron Patterson.

Neil Degrass Tyson is a great choice as a host, though some people suggested that Carolyn Porco would have been a great choice too.

Although he does a great job as a host, I can't help but think that he seems too contained. I would have liked it better if he had the

same energy as "My Favourite Universe" or any other Youtube video hes in. Maybe they thought that it would scare away viewers if he was

too energetic.

I still think the original is better, there won't be anyone like Carl Sagan anytime soon.

But the fact is that it wouldn't work for this generation and that why it's great that we have a new version that appeals to it.

[pxi]

Yup. I think Tyson's goal is to teach people how scientists THINK and how they approach issues...and why that approach is the most logical/rational approach. He wants to promote critical thinking and make people question their pre-conceived beliefs.

Judging from the outcry of the religious fundamentalists in the US, it seems to be working...because omfg they seem worried

Actually I was unaware of the outcry, but it does not surprise me in the slightest. It did strike me that the new series seems to place more emphasis on the historical conflict between Christian Belief Systems and science. Ironic really, considering mainstream Christianity today generally embraces the scientific worldview, and still finds room for faith.

I don't count myself as religious (my grandfather was a clergyman, so I had a fair amount of exposure growing up), but I look at the evolution of the entire Universe - which can pretty much be explained from Big-Bang forward, right up to where we are now. That's where I find whatever faith I have left.

But here's the thing: I recognise that my Belief Systems are just that. They're a set of tales I tell myself to essentially handwave away the things I cannot explain or find irrefutable answers to. I refuse to be dogmatic, I recognise that my BS is imperfect, as are all BS. To question someone's BS is probably the best thing you can do for them - it's how we arrive at better, more meaningful answers.

People opposing a show like Cosmos, are not defending their faith, they are against thinking.

[John Crichton]

Actually I was unaware of the outcry, but it does not surprise me in the slightest. It did strike me that the new series seems to place more emphasis on the historical conflict between Christian Belief Systems and science. Ironic really, considering mainstream Christianity today generally embraces the scientific worldview, and still finds room for faith.

I don't count myself as religious (my grandfather was a clergyman, so I had a fair amount of exposure growing up), but I look at the evolution of the entire Universe - which can pretty much be explained from Big-Bang forward, right up to where we are now. That's where I find whatever faith I have left.

But here's the thing: I recognise that my Belief Systems are just that. They're a set of tales I tell myself to essentially handwave away the things I cannot explain or find irrefutable answers to. I refuse to be dogmatic, I recognise that my BS is imperfect, as are all BS. To question someone's BS is probably the best thing you can do for them - it's how we arrive at better, more meaningful answers.

People opposing a show like Cosmos, are not defending their faith, they are against thinking.

Ditto...and they're fighting a losing battle against logic.

I don't think Tyson wants to attack religion, but at the same time, he wants to promote critical thinking and teach people that putting blind faith over logic never ends well...

[vger]

Actually I was unaware of the outcry, but it does not surprise me in the slightest. It did strike me that the new series seems to place more emphasis on the historical conflict between Christian Belief Systems and science. Ironic really, considering mainstream Christianity today generally embraces the scientific worldview, and still finds room for faith.

But here's the thing: I recognise that my Belief Systems are just that. They're a set of tales I tell myself to essentially handwave away the things I cannot explain or find irrefutable answers to. I refuse to be dogmatic, I recognise that my BS is imperfect, as are all BS. To question someone's BS is probably the best thing you can do for them - it's how we arrive at better, more meaningful answers.

People opposing a show like Cosmos, are not defending their faith, they are against thinking.

It would be interesting to see if the reaction would have been the same if they left religion vs. science out of it. The detracts from the point of Cosmos, in my opinion, and only adds to a concern I've already had. Pure science is unbiased, and every time you start picking at scabs, you're not being unbiased. I've been seeing this kind of thing more and more recently. I fear that the goal of science is very slowly and subtley shifting towards "debunk Faith." And while research and discovery often leads to this anyway, it's not the same thing as learning for the sake of learning. While you can publish an article stating your findings about what stars are, there's a big difference between that and walking up to people to say, "You shouldn't believe in a god, and here's why." That's not being a scientist, that's being a missionary.

The "war" is having a detrimental impact on attitude, and this is not a good thing.

Edited April 30, 2014 by vger

[pxi]

It would be interesting to see if the reaction would have been the same if they left religion vs. science out of it. The detracts from the point of Cosmos, in my opinion, and only adds to a concern I've already had. Pure science is unbiased, and every time you start picking at scabs, you're not being unbiased. I've been seeing this kind of thing more and more recently. I fear that the goal of science is very slowly and subtley shifting towards "debunk Faith." And while research and discovery often leads to this anyway, it's not the same thing as learning for the sake of learning. While you can publish an article stating your findings about what stars are, there's a big difference between that and walking up to people to say, "You shouldn't believe in a god, and here's why." That's not being a scientist, that's being a missionary.

The "war" is having a detrimental impact on attitude, and this is not a good thing.

I very much agree. Pure science is unbiased, but it is carried out by people. I'm not sure I've ever met a person who was utterly unbiased. Scientists can be as dogmatic about their beliefs as anyone else.

The greatest answers almost invariably lead to more profound questions, and there are often small caveats where one or two little things do not fit in with accepted theories, yet they are ignored because of the general utility of the theory. Where it goes wrong in my opinion is when we forget that these are all methods of modelling the world, and as the saying goes; the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal.

We're all occasional missionaries in that sense - any time we say that 'this is how it is', we're doing it.