Space Sciences Sequel to "Cosmos" coming in 2014

[ledboots]

I just want to say that my cousin homeschooled her female child, who is now a rocket scientist at NASA. Everyone who home schools isn't a Christian, stupid, or anti science.

 

[beancounter]

So from your perspective, Cosmos is just a tool used to push back against creationist?

Personally I was hoping for more from the program.

I think you're missing the point. There are a lot of adults out there in America who don't actually know the basic stuff they were supposed to learn in 4th grade. Or they "think" they know science but have it all wrong. The anti-science movement in the US has become more and more pervasive and toxic since the original Cosmos aired. There's even a new "documentary" coming that claims that the sun revolves around the earth.

There are also a lot more young people in the US who were home-schooled, and they were not taught basic science because their parents are Christians who don't want their kids learning about evolution and other basic science. They were probably taught "creationist" science, which we know is ******** because it's religion, not science.

I share your disdain for TV that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but in this case, it's actually necessary. You can't explain more complicated science to viewers who don't even get basic science. And not surprisingly, the creationist nuts hate the new version of Cosmos precisely because it contradicts their religious views. At least the series gets the basic science out there for viewers to think about.

ETA: Oh, and lest we forget: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/state-fossil-science-fight/7183277/

 

[Calliegirl]

I know far too many adults to whom most of this is new information. Something more in depth would be nice, but I think it's more important that the average adult (and child) gains some basic understanding of science.

 

[Blobbenstein]

so what are they covering?

I haven't seen it.

 

[FortyTwo]

I've watched a number of episodes so far. The majority of the content seems very basic. The kind of stuff that kids learn in 4th grade.

I really wish TV shows in general would stop trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It's easy for science-educated people to say that, but as Amy pointed out, it's also easy to forget that the vast majority of people aren't science-educated. They tend to forget these things after they're taught about them, or don't care in the first place.

The appeal of Cosmos is that it addresses a wide range of scientific topics, including the basics, in an interesting manner, akin to a sci-fi movie or historical drama. That way, it catches the public's attention in a way that general schooling and/or long Discovery Channel specials full of crusty Physicists droning on over poorly rendered CGI slideshows (not that these programs are bad, and I love them to death, but like it or not that's how most people are going to view them) did not.

It does appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that's kind-of the point. It also appeals to those who are more versed in science, or at least it tries to (and it certainly succeeds in my case!), by presenting common material in an interesting and engaging way. The historical parts, which were present in the original series, are also fantastic in that they present some stories that aren't widely known. I've learned a thing or two from them myself. They bring certain obscurer scientists into the public eye and give famous scientists a more human approach, considering their life stories, the good and the bad and the scandalous. All things that attract the lowest common denominator of viewers, as you say.

Carl's Cosmos was a way to educate a largely science-uneducated population, and I feel like Neil's is no different. Overall my judgment of it has been that it's a bit less scientifically intensive than Carl's, but also more engaging to watch, with modern visuals and context.

TL;DR: There are plenty of sources in both media and education that address higher scientific issues; Cosmos isn't really one of them, and that's okay, because it doesn't pretend to be.

 

[FortyTwo]

so what are they covering?

I haven't seen it.

So far: basic knowledge of the Solar System, a bit of astronomical information, the lives of famous and not-famous scientists (in animated segments with stellar voice acting [Patrick Stewart!]), the mechanics of natural selection (this is a big one), basic mechanics of light and sound behavior.

 

[FortyTwo]

So from your perspective, Cosmos is just a tool used to push back against creationist?

Personally I was hoping for more from the program.

(Sorry for the triple post, I just have a lot of things to say about this)

Nah, not really a push back against Creationism specifically, just a push against ignorance and lack of science education. Don't get me wrong: it certainly is a push against Creationism in many ways. Neil often goes out of the way to address things like evolution in a basic and comprehensive manner, which is so so so important given the massive misconceptions the public holds about these things.

You can dismiss it as "just" a tool to push back against Creationism if you'd like, but even if it were just that, it'd still be an incredibly noble and brilliant show, because that's an important cause in the social and political climate we live in.

 

[Amy SF]

I just want to say that my cousin homeschooled her female child, who is now a rocket scientist at NASA. Everyone who home schools isn't a Christian, stupid, or anti science.

I know there are exceptions to the rule. But my assertion that a lot of parents homeschool their kids to keep them away from evolution and other scentific ideas still stands.

So from your perspective, Cosmos is just a tool used to push back against creationist?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Carl Sagan was criticized for popularizing science in a way that some other scientists didn't like. I guess they didn't like his showman-at-the-circus approach. But it's obvious that science knowledge in the US has actually worsened in the last 30+ years. I'm glad there's a new version of Cosmos airing on TV. I think science should be popularized as much as possible, and TV is a great tool for science education, when done right, of course.

 

[Amy SF]

FortyTwo, I wish I could adopt you.

 

[ledboots]

I know there are exceptions to the rule. But my assertion that a lot of parents homeschool their kids to keep them away from evolution and other scentific ideas still stands.



You say that like it's a bad thing.

Carl Sagan was criticized for popularizing science in a way that some other scientists didn't like. I guess they didn't like his showman-at-the-circus approach. But it's obvious that science knowledge in the US has actually worsened in the last 30+ years. I'm glad there's a new version of Cosmos airing on TV. I think science should be popularized as much as possible, and TV is a great tool for science education, when done right, of course.

Do you know a lot of home schooled kids? Do you have stats that they home school for creationism training? I used to bring my children to home school events with their cousins, and the children were bright, polite, and nice to each other for the most part. Some of the parents were Christian, some not. I never heard creationism mentioned or evolution discredited. And this is in the southern u.s.

 

[beancounter]

(Sorry for the triple post, You can dismiss it as "just" a tool to push back against Creationism if you'd like, but even if it were just that, it'd still be an incredibly noble and brilliant show, because that's an important cause in the social and political climate we live in.

I didn't dismiss it. I was clarifying Amy's view of the program.

Your response is an example of misinterpretations/making preconceived assumptions of a persons view. It is also a good example of the "knee jerk" reaction of any opinion that doesn't perfectly align with the PC world view.

 

[ledboots]

I didn't dismiss it. I was clarifying Amy's view of the program.

Your response is an example of misinterpretations/making preconceived assumptions of a persons view. It is also a good example of the "knee jerk" reaction of any opinion that doesn't perfectly align with the PC world view.

Which PC world view do you mean in this context? Creationism certainly isn't PC.

Oh, you mean not lumping a huge diverse group of people into one uneducated mass of "Jesus Rode The Dinosaurs?"

 

[beancounter]

Which PC world view do you mean in this context? Creationism certainly isn't PC.

Oh, you mean not lumping a huge diverse group of people into one uneducated mass of "Jesus Rode The Dinosaurs?"

No, that anything that pushes back against creationism is to be put on a pedestal and held in high regard, regardless of it's quality.

 

[FortyTwo]

I didn't dismiss it. I was clarifying Amy's view of the program.

Your response is an example of misinterpretations/making preconceived assumptions of a persons view. It is also a good example of the "knee jerk" reaction of any opinion that doesn't perfectly align with the PC world view.

Oh, good lord. Someone's got a grudge, methinks.

This has literally nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with science education.

If you don't want to discuss the subject at hand, and would rather debate about political correctness, then perhaps this thread isn't the best place?

 

[FortyTwo]

Do you know a lot of home schooled kids? Do you have stats that they home school for creationism training? I used to bring my children to home school events with their cousins, and the children were bright, polite, and nice to each other for the most part. Some of the parents were Christian, some not. I never heard creationism mentioned or evolution discredited. And this is in the southern u.s.

That's fair, for sure.

I think the true problem is parents who tell their kids not to believe what they hear in school. I can't imagine there are any more or less anti-evolution-teaching homeschoolers than there are these types of people.

 

[beancounter]

Read my response to LB above.

And isn't a bot odd that you should say "lord" considering the position you're taking in this thread.

Oh, good lord. Someone's got a grudge, methinks.

This has literally nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with science education.

If you don't want to discuss the subject at hand, and would rather debate about political correctness, then perhaps this thread isn't the best place?

 

[FortyTwo]

No, that anything that pushes back against creationism is to be put on a pedestal and held in high regard, regardless of it's quality.

Except Cosmos is literally one of the highest-quality science TV shows out there?

We're not talking about a YouTube series of stick figure animations called "God is a Lie: The War on Faith" put out by some fedora-obsessive asshat. We're talking about a well-funded, well-rounded television series, hosted by one of the best-known science communicators of all time, which happens to be the sequel to a well-funded, well-rounded, well-known, and thoroughly praised television series hosted by one of the best-known science communicators of all time, with one of the best-known science writers of all time working on both projects.

Note that this doesn't mean that pushing against Creationism being taught as science isn't a noble goal, nor that the singular purpose of Cosmos is to push back against Creationism. Remember, it's a science education show. It's supposed to teach those who don't know science about science, both basic and advanced, on a totally understandable level. It just happens to **** of Creationists because they don't like discussing science, and in doing so it becomes a tool to fight against these types of people who don't want to hear about real life.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I'm sure some people take great delight in not believing what scientists say, partly from a feeling that the scientific community isn't trust worthy; and is a bit arrogant....
People feel that science is a bit like a religion, and I was reading Logics posts on VB and he was talking about Scientific Realism. The idea that science can really discover what fundamentally makes this reality tick, is a position of scientific realism, and that is a sort of religious position.

better check my baked beans.,

 

[Blobbenstein]

what I mean is, how ever small you look, and how ever far back, there will always be smaller, and always be further back. We will never know what really makes things work, so to dismiss religious ideas, is arrogant, and leads people to be suspicious and distrusting of those scientists and scientific cheerleaders who do that.

 

[Amy SF]

What I would like to ask scientists:

1. Before the Big Bang occurred which created the universe, what was there? Okay, nothing. But how is that possible? Was there just an empty space? Was there an empty space next to other universes that got filled up with our universe?

2. Why is there always an automatic assumption that any "life" on other planets, in other galaxies, is more advanced than we are? Isn't it possible that we humans are the most advanced people (for lack of a better word) in existence? Isn't it possible that the reason why we haven't had any response to any of the signals we send out into space is because any life out there either doesn't recognize the signals for what they are, or they do and don't know how to respond? (Of course there's always the possibility that there has been a response, but from so far out into the universe that it will take millions of years to reach the earth.)

These are genuine questions I'd like answered, but I'd rather have reputable scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson answering them, rather than some bible-thumper who would tell me that God is responsible for everything. That's the kind of answer that wouldn't satisfy my curiosity.