Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
edited March 2014 in Off-Topic
Anyone watch the first episode of this at all? I've been watching the first episode online and I've enjoyed it a lot.

CrevsDaakJLeejackjack

Comments

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,145
    edited March 2014
    I watched around 10 minutes from the start but I had something else to do (like playing BG and being on the forums doing homework and reading a book), I liked it and probably going to see it someday.

    elminsterTeflonjackjacklolien
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    I saw it. These thing are usually just orchestral music, Morgan freeman and lots of purity space animations, with minimal actual facts. This one was really, really, good purty space animations, and the story about the one monk I'd never heard before. It lived up to my (loftier than average)expectations. Brain green and nova wheres betterest doh.

    elminsterJLeeCrevsDaak
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 648
    Thoroughly enjoyed it. NDTs story at the end was just awesome and tied it all together. Can't wait for the next episode!

    elminstermeaglothTeflon
  • ronaldoronaldo Member Posts: 263
    I'm a sucker for any kind of show like this. The story of the monk was new to me also and I thought the animation was done very well. As @JLee said the ending story about how NDT and Sagan crossed paths so many years ago gave me goosebumps.

    JLeejackjack
  • TeflonTeflon Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 517
    I didn't watched it all however president recommendation certainly made me want to find out and watch carl sagan's original cosmos.

  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    They certainly went all out with evolution there, saying it's undisputed fact. I'm Christian, and while I accept evolution as a natural process, and that life evolved from cells, and that the earth is most certainly 4 billion years old, I don't much care for the rather bold way they did that bit.
    That and the asteroids. This always gets to me. The asteroid belt is not full of massive rocks flying all over. You don't need to maneuver you spaceship around them.If they where that close together then they would have formed planets by now, and they did that a while back. They chance of a spacecraft getting hit by and asteroid is very small, even there. Then they did the Same thing with the ort cloud, having the imagination ship doge a bunch of rocks, and NDT Went on to say in the film, that each particle is as far from the other as the earth is from Saturn. Read up, graphics department :/

    elminsterCrevsDaak
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,248
    I highly recommend Carl Sagan's book Cosmos - it's nothing short of a classic.
    I need to watch this.

    elminster
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    I watched and enjoyed the first episode. I had heard Tyson's story about meeting Sagan before, during a the Celebration of Carl Sagan event I attended at the Library of Congress last year, but I still teared up a little when he told it on Cosmos.

    elminsterjackjack
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    Anyone keep up with this? Personally I'm about 2 weeks behind at this point. Very interesting show though.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,145
    edited April 2014
    elminster said:

    Anyone keep up with this? Personally I'm about 2 weeks behind at this point.

    I still haven't finished watching the first episode hahaha! Looks like BG helds my attention better.

    elminster
  • ronaldoronaldo Member Posts: 263
    I've watched every episode and I can say that they all have been excellent.

    elminster
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,248
    There are times, rare but undeniable, when I wished to own a TV - this is one such instance. You say this is available online?

  • ronaldoronaldo Member Posts: 263
    @jackjack try cosmosontv.com Looks like all the episodes are there.

    jackjackCrevsDaakelminster
  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    meagloth said:

    They certainly went all out with evolution there, saying it's undisputed fact. I'm Christian, and while I accept evolution as a natural process, and that life evolved from cells, and that the earth is most certainly 4 billion years old, I don't much care for the rather bold way they did that bit.

    Well, evolution is an undisputed fact...

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I'd classify it as a "prevailing theory", in the same way that gravity is a "prevailing theory". There are definitely people out there who would attempt to dispute it.

    Despite all of the evidence to support it, I don't believe that anyone has successfully made the claim that evolution is anything more than a scientific theory (which is still a lot better than a lot of theories out there).

    Aristillius
  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    Dee said:

    I'd classify it as a "prevailing theory", in the same way that gravity is a "prevailing theory". There are definitely people out there who would attempt to dispute it.

    Despite all of the evidence to support it, I don't believe that anyone has successfully made the claim that evolution is anything more than a scientific theory (which is still a lot better than a lot of theories out there).

    Oh, Dee... Don't do this to me, you are breaking my heart.

    'Theory' in a scientific sense is not the same thing as 'theory' in a colloquial sense. It really does mean that, unless you are an expert in that particular field, it is as close to an absolute fact as is possible to exist. The difference between an absolute fact and a scientific theory is literally academic.

    You don't get to undermine it by saying it is 'just a theory' any more than you get to use ridiculous bronze-age superstitions to refute it.

    elminster
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    edited May 2014
    @enneract‌ That's how I meant it, actually. Don't worry, I'm not about to say I disagree with the theory of evolution. I just wanted to clarify the terminology. (Notice I said scientific theory, rather than mere theory.)

    Fact:
    "Every time I have thrown this ball up in the air it has kept going for a bit and then come back down."

    Theory:
    "We can assume that, under these same circumstances, every time the ball is tossed up in the air it will keep going for a bit and then come back down, with allowances for the wind changing or my friend grabbing the ball before it starts to fall."

    The concept of evolution as "a species will gradually adapt through genetic mutation to respond to environmental stimuli" is a theory based on the fact that species have gradually adapted that way in the past (and also based on real-time observations of such a phenomenon happening in controlled settings).

    Theories don't lose substance because they're theories; in fact there's a lot of weight in calling something a theory, which people often discount. Evolution as a concept is a theory, and will always be a theory, because it is a prediction of outcomes based on observations. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it not a fact. :)

    CrevsDaakelminsterjackjackAristillius
  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    edited May 2014
    Fair enough; but my point remains that for the overwhelming majority of humanity, differentiating a 'fact' and a 'theory' is silly at best and counterproductive at worst; as it serves as an 'in' for the jesus, mo & general woo brigade.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I figured that in a thread about a scientific web series, a little academic clarification wouldn't be unwelcome. :)

    jackjack
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    edited May 2014
    Dee said:

    I figured that in a thread about a scientific web series, a little academic clarification wouldn't be unwelcome. :)

    Its technically not a web series (fox and national geographic both broadcast it).

    enneract
  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    edited May 2014
    Cosmos isn't a 'scientific web series'. It is a 'televised scientific literacy delivery vehicle', and part of that is decoupling the scientific *concept* of a theory with the colloquialism of 'theory', while emphasizing how well established theories are virtually indistinguishable from 'facts'.

    I don't know if you've been watching the show, but NGT has really been hammering this home, and Sagan did the same in his time.

    The (very important, but so subtle that it is really only appropriate in a narrow circumstance) distinction between a theory and a fact is one of the places which antiscience advocates like to try to place their wedge. They don't need any help.

  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    enneract said:

    meagloth said:

    They certainly went all out with evolution there, saying it's undisputed fact. I'm Christian, and while I accept evolution as a natural process, and that life evolved from cells, and that the earth is most certainly 4 billion years old, I don't much care for the rather bold way they did that bit.

    Well, evolution is an undisputed fact...
    @enneract‌

    No. No it isn't. Its a theory. It's called the theory of evolution; fact isn't even a scientific term, really. Gravity is a scientific law, evolution is a theory. And the "undisputed fact" that you speak of is not "Evolution" where life spring up out of a primordial soup spontaneously and simply through a roll of the bones becomes what we are today. The undisputed fact is that things evolve; the strongest individuals pass on the most of their genes. I do not contest that. I think about the world like this. I believe this stronger than a large percentage of my peers. This scientific fact weighs heavily On the way I see the world. I would go so far as to say that I (or at least I am capable of) think differently than most of my peers because of this, along with some other things.

    The disputed fact is that life was spontaneous. To call that an "undisputed scientific fact" is absurd. This is one of the most argued over and disputed ideas of our age. That is why I took issue with Mr. Tyson's statement.

    I do not like the way this has made the dispute into science v. religion. It should not be like that. It should be science+religion. I don't think they conflict(Christianity anyway. I can hardly speak for anyone else, and I certainly don't want to put words in anyone's mouth) and if they do, we've been doing something very wrong for the past few thousand years.

  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    edited May 2014
    meagloth said:

    enneract said:

    meagloth said:

    They certainly went all out with evolution there, saying it's undisputed fact. I'm Christian, and while I accept evolution as a natural process, and that life evolved from cells, and that the earth is most certainly 4 billion years old, I don't much care for the rather bold way they did that bit.

    Well, evolution is an undisputed fact...
    @enneract‌

    No. No it isn't. Its a theory. It's called the theory of evolution; fact isn't even a scientific term, really. Gravity is a scientific law, evolution is a theory. And the "undisputed fact" that you speak of is not "Evolution" where life spring up out of a primordial soup spontaneously and simply through a roll of the bones becomes what we are today. The undisputed fact is that things evolve; the strongest individuals pass on the most of their genes. I do not contest that. I think about the world like this. I believe this stronger than a large percentage of my peers. This scientific fact weighs heavily On the way I see the world. I would go so far as to say that I (or at least I am capable of) think differently than most of my peers because of this, along with some other things.

    The disputed fact is that life was spontaneous. To call that an "undisputed scientific fact" is absurd. This is one of the most argued over and disputed ideas of our age. That is why I took issue with Mr. Tyson's statement.

    I do not like the way this has made the dispute into science v. religion. It should not be like that. It should be science+religion. I don't think they conflict(Christianity anyway. I can hardly speak for anyone else, and I certainly don't want to put words in anyone's mouth) and if they do, we've been doing something very wrong for the past few thousand years.
    Er... Gravity is a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory. Scientific 'laws' are a method of mathematically codifying a theory, ie, they are a component of a theory, not 'one level up' from a theory. 'Theory' in a scientific sense means that a particular idea is consistently able to make accurate future predictions, can be experimentally demonstrated, explains all relevant existing historical data, and lots of very smart experts in that field have been heavily incentivized to prove it wrong, but have been unable to for a significant period of time. When you can produce actual evidence that calls the theory of evolution into question, then you can question it - until then, not so much.

    Yes, lots of people 'debate and argue' about evolution. That doesn't mean that there is any actual 'controversy' about it among the circles which actually have a right to have their opinion about it taken seriously. There are no credible biologists who question the theory of evolution as a whole (specific parts of it are constantly being study, falling under scrutiny and being revised, that is how science works - and I'm not talking about the manufactured 'micro' vs 'macro' evolution nonsense)

    Furthermore, the 'how did the first 'life' (as defined by a chemical structure which is capable of imperfectly, but perfectly enough to typically continue allow for self-replication, replicating itself) come about' is not a question that the theory of evolution addresses, that is a separate issue (panspermia, abiogenesis, etc). Additionally, you frame evolution as a random process; this is false.

    really not trying to turn this into science v religion flamebait, but you kinda did that already by pulling the 'I like the show, but I'm a christian so I'm going to willfully argue about one of the central tenants of modern science simply because my ancient work of fiction is questioned by it' routine.

    But yea, the asteroid field scene had me facepalming so hard, lol.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    edited May 2014
    On a totally unrelated note I was watching the 4th episode and I kept thinking "is that Patrick Stewart?" It sounded a lot like him but there was something that seemed a bit off about his voice. It could have just been my headphones. Anyways, I thought it was pretty cool that they got picard to do voiceover work for the show.

    Post edited by elminster on
    jackjack
  • enneractenneract Member Posts: 187
    Nope, that was totally Patrick Stewart.

    elminsterjackjackCrevsDaak
Sign In or Register to comment.