I was disappointed in his remake of Cosmos as I felt he pilfered from promoting public interest in science to advance several social agendas (marginalizing Christians, selling global climate change, etc.).
Now he’s coming out with a new show that’s sponsored by CBS and will feature celebrity guests.
Hope for the best – prepare for the worst
RX Reven' wrote: I was disappointed in his remake of Cosmos as I felt he pilfered from promoting public interest in science to advance several social agendas (marginalizing Christians, selling global climate change, etc.).
I don't know what the guy said against Christians on the show, I know he's anti-religious but I'd be surprised if he brought that onto Cosmos...I guess I'll have to watch all the episodes to see for myself. (Edit: I should add that there are beliefs in fundamentalist Christianity that are at odds with science...in which case, tough titty, it was a science show).
However, science says (anthropogenic) global climate change is as surely real as science can be sure about something, so if he touched on the topic in the show, to suggest anything else would be pseudoscientific nonsense.
"People think the universe don't be like it is, but it do." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson
I was also somewhat disappointed by Cosmos, though for different reasons than you. I just kind of thought it was a little boring, though I loved Carl Sagan's version. I don't think Tyson was trying to marginalize Christians... I think he was trying to point out places that faith has stomped all over scientific investigation, of which there are many, to this day. That is not limited to Christianity, though Christianity for better or worse is intimately bound up with Western history. I do think a lot of those narrative detours were way too long, though.
He often comes across like a condescending prick. I'll probably skip the new show too.
I just read some of the comments at the bottom of the linked announcement and there’s already a E36 M3 fest of religious controversy raging before the first episode has even aired.
For what it’s worth, I’m not very religious and I make my living from science by teaching statistics and conducting experiments in the Med-Tech industry.
Let science be science and religion be religion.
I understand this, Carl Sagan understood this, but Neil goes out of his way to kick the religious bee hive.
As usually, the Atheists and the Fundamentalists can't leave each other alone. If you don't like something, ignore it. Don't comment at the bottom of a post about a TV show... Too many people can't get enough out of life without hassling someone who thinks differently than them. Grant it, now this is making me mad at bottom groups that can't just shut the berkeley up and I want to yell at them both! Where is my outlet for that?
It does say "late night", so that's not terribly encouraging.
Almost anything that might bring science or critical thinking into some sort of mainstream would be very nice.
I am a bit suspicious it will not do well... that is, until he gets Kim Kardashian on to talk about black holes and she discovers the topic is not about...
I listen to his pod cast every now and then. He has done a great job of helping get younger people interested in science. But he does come across as a condicending jerk when talking about some things.
Lancer007 wrote: But he does come across as a condicending jerk when talking about some things.
That's because there are some things that 90% of the people should have at least a token understanding of at this point (even if they still believe otherwise), and they don't. What pisses the rest of us off is that they have no interest in knowing. But with that said, cue the picture of Homer disappearing backwards into the bushes.
Seems to me, he's more anti-anti-science then anti-religious.
I like Tyson, for the most part. Yes he can be a condescending so and so at times but can't we all?
Speaking of that, stuff like this:
makes me a little (okay, more than a little) distrustful of what the religious really think of us skeptics. In many instances acceptance appears to be a one way street.
GameboyRMH wrote: However, science says (anthropogenic) global climate change is as surely real as science can be sure about something, so if he touched on the topic in the show, to suggest anything else would be pseudoscientific nonsense.
You know, just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. I am not religious in the slightest AND work in R&D. Climate change is, at best, still not understood. To categorically claim what you just did is laughable.
HiTempguy wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: However, science says (anthropogenic) global climate change is as surely real as science can be sure about something, so if he touched on the topic in the show, to suggest anything else would be pseudoscientific nonsense.You know, just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. I am not religious in the slightest AND work in R&D. Climate change is, at best, still not understood. To categorically claim what you just did is laughable.
It's true and it's not just because I said it, I don't know why you think it's "at best, still not understood." Practically all scientists strongly disagree with you.
The climate changes. Scientists believe those changes will impact humans. Whether or not we have done or can do anything about it is up for debate.
You work in R&D for Oil and Gas, right?
I liked Cosmos. I like Neil.
PHeller wrote: Whether or not we have done or can do anything about it is up for debate.
Actually, not really, the anthropogenic cause is strongly proven and well-understood. Technically there are certainly things we could do about it, the debate is over what can politically be made to happen.
The climate is changing. You can make arguments about the causes, but denying that it is changing is simply silly.
Neil can't help that the Christian dark ages set us way back as a species. I guess we could try to pretend that they were caused by something else.
The only time religion belongs in a classroom is during a theology class. Isn't that how it should be?
rotard wrote: The climate is changing. You can make arguments about the causes, but denying that it is changing is simply silly.
I often tell "climate skeptics" that if it were discovered tomorrow that global warming were 100% naturally caused, we'd still have basically the same problem on our hands, the only difference would be that we'd call the solutions geoengineering.
Right. I agree with you my Caribbean Compadre. Many people just need to admit the fact that the climate is changing in ways we can't completely predict, and their vacation home may be under water in a few years.
Our environment and climate is much like a volcano. We can say "it has erupted before" and "it will erupt again" but we can't really determine exactly when, but building a huge city right next to it is kinda stupid, because when it happens we won't be able to do a damn thing about it.
Climate changes. If it didn't we wouldn't have had multiple ice ages with periods of subtropic temps in between. How much is man made is truly up for grabs. I PERSONALLY believe that big glowing orb in the sky has more effect on our climate than anything we peons have done in hundreds of years.
Toyman01 wrote: He often comes across like a condescending prick. I'll probably skip the new show too.
Scientists do sound like that sometimes to people who refuse to accept the science no matter what evidence is presented.
I PERSONALLY believe
First mistake right there. There is a difference between belief and knowing. The scientists making these claims, including people employed by the DOD and NASA, have data and evidence backing it up.
Like what do you do? Are you a scientist graduated from MIT or some prestigious university whose job is it to conduct experiments and launch satellites or study ice core samples? Or are you just some carpenter or IT worker? I think this is a huge problem with society, especially since the internet came about, everyone has massive egos now and nobody not even scientists whose job it is to research things like this knows more.
Reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists. IDK how they did so that means they DIDNT and it's a CONSPIRACY!
Bobzilla wrote: Climate changes. If it didn't we wouldn't have had multiple ice ages with periods of subtropic temps in between. How much is man made is truly up for grabs. I PERSONALLY believe that big glowing orb in the sky has more effect on our climate than anything we peons have done in hundreds of years.
This. The climate has been, is and always will be cyclical. That does NOT mean we should foul the only nest we have!
I'd like to see the CO2 level drop; it is a proven fact that it has climbed a good bit in the last hundred years or so and even if it isn't responsible for climate change it's not a good idea to keep jacking it up.
I'll have to take a look, and I admit to being a NDT fan boy.
Curmudgeon wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Climate changes. If it didn't we wouldn't have had multiple ice ages with periods of subtropic temps in between. How much is man made is truly up for grabs. I PERSONALLY believe that big glowing orb in the sky has more effect on our climate than anything we peons have done in hundreds of years.This. The climate has been, is and always will be cyclical. That does NOT mean we should foul the only nest we have! I'd like to see the CO2 level drop; it is a proven fact that it has climbed a good bit in the last hundred years or so and even if it isn't responsible for climate change it's not a good idea to keep jacking it up.
All things I agree with.
But once again, to trot out that old tired line of reasoning, it wasn't too long ago that global cooling was the next big thing.
People haven't suddenly become smarter in 30-40 years since that happened. We do have great computational power at our disposal, and better theories. But they are just that: theories.
As I have pointed out elsewhere before, continue to try and tell me how accurately they can measure the temperature from hundreds of thousands of years ago. I will continue to laugh about it.
For the record, I’m not refuting global climate change and I absolutely acknowledge the importance of the subject.
However, by definition, Cosmos means everything in the universe.
What percent of the universe is comprised of earth’s climate change…what percent of the new Cosmos series was dedicated to the subject?
Neil clearly allocated about a billion, trillion, gazillion percent too much time to the subject and I don’t appreciate the bait and switch job.
If I sit down with my kids to watch “Happy Fun Clown Goes to the Beach” and it turns out to be pron, I’m going to be extremely annoyed…if I sit down with my buddies to watch “Cosmos” and it turns out to be social agenda stuff, I’m going to be extremely annoyed.
That's all
Curmudgeon wrote: I like Tyson, for the most part. Yes he can be a condescending so and so at times but can't we all? Speaking of that, stuff like this:
makes me a little (okay, more than a little) distrustful of what the religious really think of us skeptics. In many instances acceptance appears to be a one way street.
You should see how much opposition a man get in a pub in downtown Savannah for asking some guy who is screaming prayers at top of his lungs to "pipe the berkeley down with that bullE36 M3". I mean, what the berkeley is a baptist pastor doing in a bar, praying loudly at at 10:30 in the morning while I'm trying soak in a 3rd Bloody Mary to cure my ails anyway? Aside from getting a bunch of people riled up at me?
Sign on door I notice at exit "Sunday Prayer Breakfast"
Ooops. Even I'm not always in the right even when I'm right. I'll watch the show.
You'll need to log in to post.
