Cosmos redux

[richb]

I agree, the spaceship is cartoonish and they could have done without it.

I have seen the eye used to explain evolution frequently. It is so complex that one asks how can such a complex organ be the result of small evolutionary changes? So it is an excellent choice as an explanatory tool.

I get so wrapped up in the science that editorial choices are not on my mind when I am watching. I guess I am not looking for an agenda when watching, which there very well might be, but become awed by the science,

[vw72]

It always interest me that one's interpretation is usually biased, I am not using biased pejoratively, by one's worldview.. With my bias, I did not see any attack on religion in either of the two episodes. In the case of the development of the eye episode, I did not make any connection to it. No doubt because my bias rejects it, I never considered it as an alternate explanation.

My point was, as has been discussed in the media, that unlike the original series, there seems to be an agenda in some of the topics, or at least how they are portrayed. I actually thought that the "eye" piece (no pun intended), was actually well done. However, like others I did find myself wondering why so much time was spent on it, particularly when there were other, maybe, better/simpler examples to explain evolution. Why choose the eye, when there is a lot of uncertainty about how it evolved in the scientific community?

While unlike others, I will continue to watch the show, mainly to encourage more shows like it, I do wonder about the editorial content at times. And I really hate the spaceship gimmick that looks like something from an old Wing Commander game.

[richb]

It always interest me that one's interpretation is usually biased, I am not using biased pejoratively, by one's worldview.. With my bias, I did not see any attack on religion in either of the two episodes. In the case of the development of the eye episode, I did not make any connection to it. No doubt because my bias rejects it, I never considered it as an alternate explanation.

[vw72]

Their treatment of Bruno's "martyrdom" (their words, not mine) was interesting.

Bruno is thrown out of his monastery and stripped of his priesthood because of his views, which roughly correspond to the present understanding of the Universe. He then is invited to speak at other venues, each one ending with the rejection of his ideas and of him personally. The last time is when he is invited to speak in England. The episode makes a huge statement about how he was again rejected and left the country, returning to Rome where he was burned at the stake for his opinions. In England he is shown, after the rejection of his speech, walking out between two columns of his peers, they are shown waving their fist and shouting insults at him. I could hear them shouting "denier!, denier" because he rejected what they thought was patently obvious; that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It rises ever morning in the East, traverses the sky and sets in the West, and observers feel no motion of the Earth. In effect, Bruno's ideas were subjected to "peer review". His peers read his writing, listened to his ideas and then rejected them, going so far as to destroy his employment and burn his books.

Except that Bruno wasn't defrocked and in trouble for what he was sayng about the universe. He was defrocked about his theological views. He denied the Catholic Church's teaching on the Trinity, Christ's divinity, Mary's virginity and teachings on the eucharist. The revamped Cosmos tried to make it sound like it was because of the universe.

So week one tries to make the Catholics look bad. Last week, they went after the Evangelicals with all the talk about how the eye developed (which is one of the articles the Creationists use). It seems like each week they are going to have a segment attacking religion, subtley of course. Carl Sagan didn't do that in the original.

[SteveRiley]

unfortunately there are those who would kill the messenger and lose the war.

By pointedly refusing to watch the show -- as you admit -- doesn't this make you guilty of the same thing? Much of what we thought we knew when Sagan created the original Cosmos has been updated.

[SteveRiley]

Billions and Billions and Billions...

More at Symphony of Science.

[woodsmoke]

I did not think that this would get into AGW.

However, GW is occuring and has been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years due to the solar cycles.

But one might consider the complete icing of the Thames River in the 1800s, the painting of and the photograph of a bridge in Naples and the Nuclear Submarines in the "Northwest Passage" in the sixties.

woodsmoke

[lcorken]

The argument against global warming theory may be directly proportional to how much an individual has had to shovel snow recently.

I was only house bound for a couple days this year. Rather than chain up the car I decided to put Yaktrax on my shoes and walk to the store.

Ken. In Lincoln City, Oregon.

[GreyGeek]

Their treatment of Bruno's "martyrdom" (their words, not mine) was interesting.

Bruno is thrown out of his monastery and stripped of his priesthood because of his views, which roughly correspond to the present understanding of the Universe. He then is invited to speak at other venues, each one ending with the rejection of his ideas and of him personally. The last time is when he is invited to speak in England. The episode makes a huge statement about how he was again rejected and left the country, returning to Rome where he was burned at the stake for his opinions. In England he is shown, after the rejection of his speech, walking out between two columns of his peers, they are shown waving their fist and shouting insults at him. I could hear them shouting "denier!, denier" because he rejected what they thought was patently obvious; that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It rises ever morning in the East, traverses the sky and sets in the West, and observers feel no motion of the Earth. In effect, Bruno's ideas were subjected to "peer review". His peers read his writing, listened to his ideas and then rejected them, going so far as to destroy his employment and burn his books.

Doesn't that sound familiar today? Peer review today is used more often to keep out-of-the-box thinking out of the box. The process gets hijacked by the moneyed few and those who risk challenging the status quo in science risk loosing their funding and their jobs, simply because a cohort of like-minded "scientists" reject any and all opposing research. It's the same as being barred from working in the field and having your papers "burned". The "peer-review" situation has become so incestuous that folks working hand-in-hand are "reviewing" each others papers. You'll recognize Mann, who's "hockey stick" graph generated such controversy and turned out to be nothing more than a graph of "red noise". Here is an email from the FOIA_2009 CRU zip file in which Phil Jones, of the CRU, was "recommended" by Michael Mann to review a paper by a couple other cronies, Wigley and Santer.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Brendaw Morris <brendawmorris@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: JOC Review
Date: Tue Oct 24 15:20:04 2000




Dear Brendaw,
My review of the paper JCL 3435 is attached. My recommendation is
to accept the paper subject to minor changes. I don't wish to see it
again. If there are any problems with the attachment, let me know and
I can fax the 2 pages.


Cheers
Phil Jones






At 06:58 PM 10/7/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Professor Michael Mann, Editor of Journal of Climate, has suggested you as a
>possible reviewer of a paper entitled "Differential ENSO and volcanic
>effects on surface and tropospheric temperatures" (JCL-3435 by T. M. L.
>Wigley and B. D. Santer.
>
>Would you please let me know whether or not you will be able to do this
>review? If you accept, we ask that you complete your review by 11/24/00 (if
>possible). Hard copy or e-mail copies of reviews are very acceptable.
>
>Also, if you accept, please send your complete address including telephone
>and fax numbers for our files. Thank you so much.
>
>If you are unable to do this review, suggestions of other potential
>reviewers (and their e-mail addresses) for this paper would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>Brenda W. Morris
>Editorial Assistant
>Journal of Climate
>

Mann, Jones, Wigley, Santer and a host of other CRU folks and their buddies constantly included each other via CC in their emails, where they discussed things like how to get editors not "on board" with AGW replaced by ones who are, how to hide the temperature decline in the Maunder Minimum so that it doesn't drag the hockey stock down, and a host of other stuff. If you get a chance read the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file in the 2009 FOIA zip because it describes the state of the data on which the hockey stick and their global warming theory is based.

[woodsmoke]

unfortunately there are those who would kill the messenger and lose the war.

woodsmoke.

[richb]

Our knowledge of the Universe did not stop expanding, (just as the Universe has not stopped expanding) 30 years ago. Of course I will watch it. I do not want to be stuck in the past.

[lcorken]

Billions and Billions and Billions...

[Snowhog]

Curriculum Vitae | Neil deGrasse Tyson

He is very well qualified. I like watching/listening to his stuff.

[GreyGeek]

I'm looking forward to watching it. I like Neal deGrass Tyson, he is a very intelligent fellow who will do justice to Sagan, or even out do him. I've watched several of his videos on YouTube. Two especially where he stood out from other guest who were also speaking. One was on UFO's and the other was on travelling to other galaxies.

[bweinel]

They were also re-running the original version early 80s version today earlier on National Geographic Channel.

It'll be a tough act to follow Carl Sagan. (However, I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson [who is hosting the remake] is a big Sagan fan as well as a renown astronomer. Hopefully he'll do it justice.)

cheers,
bill