Does Anyone Out There Watch "Cosmos"?

[Horn Brain]

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.

Faith, if it's defined as believing something without or in spite of good evidence, is directly opposed to science. You can't have a science show that doesn't at least implicitly argue directly against that kind of belief. It's just not possible. Science is the rejection of faith in that sense.

Most people use faith to mean other things, like "religion", "confidence in yourself", etc. Cosmos has nothing to say about these things really. It never says you can't be religious and do science. The "hero" of the first episode, for instance, was very religious, as was Newton. All Cosmos wants is for people to use science when they have the option, because science is always the best way to find out the truth about nature (almost by definition, since if there was a demonstrably better way discovered to learn about nature, science would incorporate it). As long as you keep your mind open that what you believe may be challenged and proven wrong, then you can do science.

So be careful when you say things like Cosmos is picking on people's faith, because in some sense it couldn't do otherwise, and in some sense it's absolutely not.

[lajoswinkler]

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.

The main reasons why it seems like that are:

- to a lesser account because top science has so incredibly advanced that it literally picks at the last gaps where "god of the gaps" is hiding

- to a greater account because people are more aware of science due to the globalization and spread of communication systems - pure science from the beggining of 20th century is slowly entering the common knowledge

Ever since Newton and Kepler, foundations of religion have been shattered, but the majority was ignorant or just doublethinking.

People who are acquainted with both are hardly ever religious, and when they are, it's doublethink or just pro forma, bonded with nationalism etc. You just can't know all of that and still sincerely believe in religious fairytales.

[John Crichton]

Well, Tyson just clarified his goal for Cosmos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no-KeX_N91w

[PakledHostage]

That's like blaming gravity because you're gaining weight

Also on Fox:

[TheCardinal]

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

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.

Same here. Tyson has a nice voice but he lacks the drama (for lack of a better word) which Sagan was able to put into his words.

[vger]

Well, Tyson just clarified his goal for Cosmos:

Huh, well that certainly struck a cord with me. Politicization of Science... yep. Almost EVERY debate I see, somehow feels like religion vs. science these days, even in places where it makes no sense to be there, and the global warming issue is a prime example. People keep accusing scientists of making it all up, because some political party has a solution looking for a problem.

But then you have the "recent studies," that are causing all of this doubt, when businesses use science to market products. You can do a 'study' to prove something is good for you, and just as easily do one to prove the opposite, depending on what it is you're peddling. All it takes is a little application of Mental Manipulation 101. So sad

Four out of five doctors who are all employed by us recommend Pill'o'death to their clients.

[Soda Popinski]

I've been listening to Tyson's weekly radioshow / podcast (Star Talk). It's a very entertaining, if not kid friendly, program. The format of the show includes NDT, a comedian as the layman, and usually an interview with a scientist or science communicator. Either last week or 2 weeks ago, they had on one of the co-writers of Cosmos, Steven Soter. A very interesting interview. He's a huge science history buff, which is where most of that comes from on the show.

Anybody interested in the Cosmos show, should definitely tune into Star Talk.

[John Crichton]

Yup, Star Talk's pretty entertaining. He had a good discussion going with Joe Rogan not to long ago...and was on his show too:

[Woopert]

Watched the first couple episodes, but they got too off-topic. If I wanted to learn about doggie evolution, I'd watch a show about it.

[Everten P.]

Yes, but I am nagged by the fact he said he was faster than a jet.

The speed of the Corlis effect would compensate (no pun intended)