Cosmos: A Space Odyssey

[Deleted member 133]

I'd been waiting to watch the first three episodes before commenting on National Geographic's Cosmos: A Space Odyssey.

I happened upon the first episode almost by chance while channel surfing. But after a few minutes of watching I set the remote aside. Space and time were the central theme.

A week later, and after seeing executive producer Seth MacFarlane on Real Time With Bill Mahar, I was set in advance to see the second episode - this one devoted to evolution.

Now hooked, last night's third episode used the theme of pattern recognition throughout to tell the story of 17th century science greats Newton and Halley.

So far I have been more than impressed. The show does not dumb-down its content - but still, I hope, keeps it understandable to its audience. (And hopefully, anyone who did not grasp a concept the first time, will have PVR'd it and gone back for a repeat go.)

The show does not shy away from calling a spade a spade: for example the segment on the evolution of sight in the second episode, while too short IMO, ably sets aside Creationism's "irreducible complexity" argument.

To date my only quibble is the use of the "Ship of the Imagination." I find it a bit too Star Trekish. While I see the potential need for such a narrative device, I would have simply preferred to have host Neil deGrasse Tyson say "imagine yourself billions of years back in time..." etc. rather than have him do it from the deck of an imaginary vehicle.

I strongly (strongly) recommend this to all: and especially to the children who will be inspired to become the next generation of scientists in the world. (Yes I say world since this American show, like its predecessor, is aimed at, and is being seen by, a world audience.)

Jeff

 

[Huey]

Thoroughly enjoying Cosmos as well. Not quite all the way through the second episode, but it has been fun and enlightening so far. I think the host might be a little theatrical, but overall well worth watching.

 

[Akula]

I saw part of the second episode. I'm not as sure that it perfectly refuted the intelligent design concept of irreducible complexity- it did explain how it may not be the case, but it did sidestep some other arguments.

I do think science programming like this is needed, I am just hoping they find something else to cover than the evolution vs. creation debate... there's much MUCH more out there in the science world to cover, and beating religious folks over the head because they disagree on a relatively small part is, IMO, a foolish focus. There's a great deal out there to explore that even young earth creationists will fully agree upon and cheer (there's a pretty wide variety of creationist viewpoints; to treat them as all uneducated and scientifically illiterate is simplistic and not intellectually honest*).

I am looking forward to see where the show goes in topic... it's an amazing universe we live in and there's so much to explore.


*I am not saying the show should teach creationism. Far from it... I would maintain that belief in naturalistic Darwinian evolution aside, if one does not know the tenets of Darwinian evolutionary theory then one is not well educated. I am saying that while many may disagree with that as the cosmological source for our being and there is great debate on this point, it is only one part of the scientific universe. One can love the scientific method and learning about our natural world while maybe not fully submitting to a solely naturalistic view of the universe. I am hoping the show moves beyond science vs. religion debates; while they may seem to loom large, there's more to science than that.

 

[Huey]

It is kind of neat to think, that there are probably animals that have walked on this earth beyond our wildest dreams, but because of some small genetic difference, those animals were naturally selected out. There could have been blue bears at one point, but because the brown ones blended in with their environment, they were able to be better hunters.

 

[Srvy]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is no Carl Sagan watched the first and was long and didn't hold my attention well. Im trying real hard to like this as I loved the old Cosmos but last night was near unwatchable.

I dont think Fox has faith in it either pitting it against March Madness.

 

[Botch]

Loved the first episode, but missed the last two; is it available on the 'net somewhere, before I use up my 250 GB on pr0n this month?

 

[Zing]

...before I use up my 250 GB on pr0n this month?

Play your keyboards instead. It's therapeutic.

I have not seen any of these episodes yet but I know I want to. The likelihood of me actually watching any on NatGeo is pretty slim. It would involve a great deal of luck, perfect timing, perfect circumstances and perfect alignment of the very topic of the show. But the instant this series is available on disc, I'll be all over it like white on rice.

 

[Botch]

I'm spanking my red organ as we speak! :music-rockout:

 

[Deleted member 133]

I was very impressed with last night's episode - up to about the 3/4 mark.

It then hit the "wall" that I feared it would: at some point, for some topics, you will not be able to dumb it down / explain it well enough for the "average" viewer. Relying on Star Trek-like special effects to "imagine" what it would be like to fly into a black hole was misleading and non-educational - at best. (Related: yes that was Patrick Stewart lending his voice to the William Herschel cartoon character.)

But up until that point, it was a great presentation of time and space - the episode's theme. (And I had to smile when the significance of 6,500 light years was brought up.)

Jeff

 

[DIYer]

I watched only 30 min last night and thought, "meh". Maybe because I took 2 semesters of astronomy class back in college and already familiar with most of the program's content. I didn't see any new theories mentioned that I haven't heard about years ago. :|

 

[Srvy]

I watched only 30 min last night and thought, "meh". Maybe because I took 2 semesters of astronomy class back in college and already familiar with most of the program's content. I didn't see any new theories mentioned that I haven't heard about years ago. :|

I must commend you for sticking it out 30 minutes. I watched 5 or 10 minutes and had to turn it off just painful to watch. Doesn't resemble the Cosmos I remember. They should have renamed this and kept the real Cosmos good name.

 

[DIYer]

I must commend you for sticking it out 30 minutes.

Only because I like astronomy.

 

[Huey]

Watched it last night, and thought it was entertaining. So you guys can't watch a show that is on Fox on a Sunday night because it's not enough like a college course?

 

[Srvy]

Watched it last night, and thought it was entertaining. So you guys can't watch a show that is on Fox on a Sunday night because it's not enough like a college course?

Lol thats not it at all. Its about trying to copy a show that was legendary and failing miserably. I was the old Cosmos religiously. When it was on it was like the whole family sat glued to the TV. Only one other show did this that was the Cousteau Odyssey.

The constant name dropping when De Gassey met Dr Carl Sagan gets old and doesn't make you any more interesting . He is a smart man and should have insisted on not trying to copy a legendary show. The dumb b grade special effects are clownish and adds nothing to the show.

But this is just me maybe if I had never seen the original Cosmos id enjoy this more. For now I just keep switching it to something else.