Cosmos ReBoot: Discussion Thread

[Mr.Peabody]

Did anyone catch the first episode of the new Cosmos series?

I was quite blown away with it, and would love to discuss it with others who are interested.

The original Cosmos is one of my all time favorite series. It's where I discovered Carl Sagan's work, which has had a defining impact on me.

I saw an interview with Seth McFarlane, who helped get the new Cosmos off the ground, and he said the goal is to make the show so visually stunning that people who don't even care about science will be enticed to tune in for the sheer spectacle of it. I believe they hit that mark! I was absolutely blown away.

I really enjoyed the part telling about Giordano Bruno's life. In many ways, I feel like our community can empathize with his tragic life. He tried so hard to open other people's minds, but everyone was closed off to what he had to say. His vision of how the cosmos really works, the stars being other suns with planets of their own, seemed to me much like an entheogenic trip. Somehow he was graced with an accurate view of the universe far before his time. In much the same way, I feel like us psychonauts who try to explain to others that there is so much more to consciousness, and there is this place called "hyperspace", draw a strong parallel to Bruno. Fortunately, many of us are able to speak out about it, though plenty of others are persecuted (thrown in jail, fined, etc). It's telling of the progress still before humanity that the same things from 400 years ago still happen today, the persecution of others for their own explorations of nature which do not conform to the "societal norm."

 

[Cosmic Spore]

As someone who was blown away by the original Cosmos [also at a young age], I really was into the new Cosmos. It made me wonder if NDT has experienced DMT, or if he's just that cosmic naturally.

NDT has giant shoes to fill, but it got off to a great start, imo.

I always loved the way they explained things in a way that was so easily understandable and yet awe-inspiring ... on another note, if only all of our society would discount arguments that have been disproven, we would advance faster.

300th post​

 

[Pandora]

I too was very passionate about Carl Sagan's Cosmos - it first ran when I was 12 years old and was blown away. I cried when I had heard Sagan had died at age 62. He was a daily smoker of weed and I have no doubt he also had experience things like acid and shrooms in his younger years.

I was also very impressed with the NTD version, including it's strong remembrance of the original. Looking to the last as well as the future. Loved the updated Spaceship of the Imagination with the viewer up/forward and viewer down/past in time business.

I cried when he showed Sagan's date book with his own name - Neil Tyson - written in, then the description of NDT's day with Carl. From all I have heard and read that was Sagan in a nutshell.

 

[Metanoia]

I almost made a thread about this, but didn't for some reason.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I first saw Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was about ten years old. It was one of the only gifts I have received from my biological father. It has a special place in my heart.

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson was the perfect guy to take on a redux of this series. I've seen many interviews and I listen to his radio show all the time. The torch has been passed to the right man, IMO.

I really liked that they went into detail about Giordano Bruno. He's one of my favorite historical figures. That segment has created some controversy, but what do you expect when a show about science starts treading into somewhat theological territory. I think their depiction of Bruno was fair and it didn't necessarily 'demonize' the church. Some people will find anything to argue with. Personally, I like that Bruno is being given such recognition as he is often ignored or ridiculed.

 

[Mr.Peabody]

I almost made a thread about this, but didn't for some reason.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I first saw Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was about ten years old. It was one of the only gifts I have received from my biological father. It has a special place in my heart.

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson was the perfect guy to take on a redux of this series. I've seen many interviews and I listen to his radio show all the time. The torch has been passed to the right man, IMO.

I really liked that they went into detail about Giordano Bruno. He's one of my favorite historical figures. That segment has created some controversy, but what do you expect when a show about science starts treading into somewhat theological territory. I think their depiction of Bruno was fair and it didn't necessarily 'demonize' the church. Some people will find anything to argue with. Personally, I like that Bruno is being given such recognition as he is often ignored or ridiculed.

I agree, NDT has the personality and the motivation to carry on Sagan's work. I am thrilled! I feel like this is something that is desperately needed in our society.

I also figured the part with Bruno would be controversial. It's funny, though. For people to be angry about that (history) means they either condone the actions of the church at the time, or they don't want the truth being available. For the second one, I wonder why.... Oh boy do I wonder....

I cried when he showed Sagan's date book with his own name - Neil Tyson - written in, then the description of NDT's day with Carl. From all I have heard and read that was Sagan in a nutshell.

Yep, I did, too. What a great story. From all of the words I have read by Sagan and about him, I really feel like he was not only an exceptional scientist, but also an exceptional human being.

 

[arcologist]

I cried when he showed Sagan's date book with his own name - Neil Tyson - written in, then the description of NDT's day with Carl. From all I have heard and read that was Sagan in a nutshell.

Yup, me too.

I was pleased with the first episode. I don't think it is quite up to the level of the original, but hopefully it will have a positive impact on the general public's attitude towards science. NDT is good but I prefer Carl's serious tone to NDT's goofiness. He's still probably the best choice though.

 

[Felnik]

That's so wild I cried too when I saw that part . Can't explain it
I feel very emotional when Tyson speaks it's strange .
I think the show is very important for people to see .
The visuals are fantastic , looking forward to the whole series .

 

[HumbleTraveler]

NDT is a true carrier of a passed on torch. He has astronomically sized shoes to fill (see what I did there ), but he is the future of furthering the direction Sagan was headed and beyond. Im looking forward to the rest of the series.

 

[Metanoia]

I also figured the part with Bruno would be controversial. It's funny, though. For people to be angry about that (history) means they either condone the actions of the church at the time, or they don't want the truth being available. For the second one, I wonder why.... Oh boy do I wonder....

From some of the articles I've read people seem to want to downplay Bruno's role in changing humanity's view of the universe. Saying that he was a terrible astronomer (which Tyson does admit to on the episode, saying "He wasn't a scientist" ) to an argumentative person who was chased out of cities and countries after engaging people in debates he couldn't win. I think they are trying to defend the church's position, which is laughable considering how Bruno died.

I'm just glad they chose to take on the subject of Bruno, and in the first episode nonetheless. Makes me very hopeful for the rest of the series. :thumb_up:

It's funny, I choked up at the part when Tyson was talking about how he met Sagan as well. I've seen him talk about that in interviews but the way it was presented or the tone of it in the show was really emotional. I agree that we as a species really need a reminder of our place in the universe and how absolutely miniscule we are when seen through a cosmic point of view. Tyson said something like, "When you look up at the night sky and see the vast array of stars presented before you, it's like a resetting of the ego."

 

[ymer]

I watched an episode yesterday, it was about evolution and possible life on other planets.

To be honest I didn't like it, the show is visually stunning but it's not very scientific, it pushes his ideas in a way that is intellectually dishonest when there's no evidence and lies here and there to get his point across.

:thumb_dow for this show.

 

[arcologist]

I watched an episode yesterday, it was about evolution and possible life on other planets.

To be honest I didn't like it, the show is visually stunning but it's not very scientific, it pushes his ideas in a way that is intellectually dishonest when there's no evidence and lies here and there to get his point across.

:thumb_dow for this show.

Care to mention any examples of that? I've seen both episodes and thought the second was significantly better than the first.

There's plenty of evidence for all of the things discussed in the episode except for those explicitly mentioned as speculation.

 

[ymer]

I watched an episode yesterday, it was about evolution and possible life on other planets.

To be honest I didn't like it, the show is visually stunning but it's not very scientific, it pushes his ideas in a way that is intellectually dishonest when there's no evidence and lies here and there to get his point across.

:thumb_dow for this show.

Care to mention any examples of that? I've seen both episodes and thought the second was significantly better than the first.

There's plenty of evidence for all of the things discussed in the episode except for those explicitly mentioned as speculation.

Specifically the part about the evolution of the human eye. He says that it's a proven evolutionary fact but when he explains it he simply says "some protein mutated to be light sensitive" which gave an evolutionary advantage, but he fails to mention how this protein trigered a response to the rest of the organism (which would require another mutation, and if the two mutations didn't happen together there would be no advantage at all for the organism).

The rest of his explanation is just an ongoing "and then this other (very complex with more nerve endings) mutation gave it yet another advantage" over and over with nothing to back it up, just assumption over assumption accompanied by very nice animations. And my problem is that he says it as if it was a scientific fact, which isn't, it's just assumption over assumption over assumption which require the previous assumptions to be true for it to work.

I would have been very pleased if he said "This is how I think the human eye evolved" instead of "We know how it happened and it's a scientific fact, here is a nice animation to convince you".

What I'm trying to say is better explained here:

In his account of the evolution of the eye, Tyson says that "a microscopic copying error" gave a protein the ability to be sensitive to light. He doesn't explain how that happened. Indeed, Sean B. Carroll cautions us to "not be fooled" by the "simple construction and appearance" of supposedly simple light-sensitive eyes, since they "are built with and use many of the ingredients used in fancier eyes."6 Tyson doesn't worry about explaining how any of those complex ingredients arose at the biochemical level. What's more interesting is what Tyson says next: "Another mutation caused it [a bacterium with the light-sensitive protein] to flee intense light."

This raises an interesting question: It's nice to have a light-sensitive protein, but unless the sensitivity to light is linked to some behavioral response, then how would the sensitivity provide any advantage? Only once a behavioral response also evolved -- say, to turn towards or away from the light -- can the light-sensitive protein provide an advantage. So if a light-sensitive protein evolved, why did it persist until the behavioral response evolved as well? There's no good answer to that question, because vision is fundamentally a multi-component, and thus a multi-mutation, feature. Multiple components -- both visual apparatus and the encoded behavioral response -- are necessary for vision to provide an advantage. It's likely that these components would require many mutations. Thus, we have a trait where an intermediate stage -- say, a light-sensitive protein all by itself -- would not confer a net advantage on the organism. This is where Darwinian evolution tends to get stuck.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_episode_083331.html#sthash.3enQ73ze.dpuf

 

[arcologist]

There is a general scientific consensus for the stages that the eye evolved in. It has evolved separately (via convergent evolution) as many as 50 to 100 times in many species, with some intermediate forms existing in the present day, so we can get a pretty good idea for the steps that must have taken place in order to give animals the variety of eyes they have. These are far from "assumptions".

Here is a video of Richard Dawkins (one of the foremost experts in evolutionary theory) explaining how the eye could have evolved in greater detail than discussed in Cosmos. Keep in mind that Cosmos is targeted at a wider audience and so I am ok with a little leniency with respect to scientific rigor.

 

[Mr.Peabody]

I agree with arcologist, I think they covered their bases enough. I also agree there is a bit of assumption to a lot of ideas about evolution. I'm sure Richard Dawkins himself would be the first to admit that there is plenty of missing evidence about a lot of different evolutionary products and theories thereof, but just because they are missing doesn't mean it didn't happen. We may be a bit off in the how, but the evidence clearly supports the what.

That's the great thing about science, it is a system that is intentionally self-correcting. I feel like they expressed this in the episode, but I could be wrong.

 

[ymer]

Here is a video of Richard Dawkins (one of the foremost experts in evolutionary theory) explaining how the eye could have evolved in greater detail than discussed in Cosmos. Keep in mind that Cosmos is targeted at a wider audience and so I am ok with a little leniency with respect to scientific rigor.

Whoa :!: , had to stop at 1:00 of the video, it's the same thing I'm complaining about what I saw in the cosmos show. They start from the premise (assumption) that this organism has a light sensitive part that already has nerve connections to whatever response system this organism has...

To quote "Lets suppose we start with an ancestor that didn't have an eye at all but just single, simple sheet of light sensitive cells", he's forgetting that these light sensitive cells need connections to the rest of the organism for it to react. No explanation whatsoever, just "lets suppose"... and then they keep assuming and asssuming. The light sensitive cells are useless without the connections to the organism "brain" system, so the light sensitive cells on their own have no evolutionary advantage at all.

But I don't want to get on a heated debate about evolution and the eye etc... just giving my opinion on why the show is deceitful at best IMO.

 

[Mitakuye Oyasin]

Here is a pretty funny parody of the Cosmos show. I've often though of how cool it would be to smoke some Cannabis with Mr. Tyson and ponder the wonders of the Universe.

 

[DreaMTripper]

I thought some of the episodes have been oversimplifying for my liking(especially using phrases such as 'star stuff' ) however considering its purpose is to summarise what we have learned about the universe to a wide audience then it does a good job.
There have also been some exceptionally good episodes as the series went on specifically the quantum mechanics episode that explained it in good terms and it really caught the imagination.
Episode 11 The Immortals I thought was profound and although dominant with speculation was a real thought provoker about the potential of the human race and planet earths destiny.
The underlying theme that we are approaching a cross road resonated strongly and I think its great that it will make many more people think about this now.