Was the Bruno segment factually accurate? Then it’s not “bashing” when you bring it up. If the truth makes the Church look bad, well, they need to own it.
Church supporters who think the show is obligated to avoid saying anything that offends their sensibilities should be strapped down, Clockwork-style, and made to rewatch that segment until they get the point.
Describing the Big Bang as an “explosion,” if that is the worst mistake they made, means the show is pretty accurate, because that is not a mistake.
An “explosion” isn’t a very scientific term. It has no particularly precise meaning; I can think of five distinct definitions of “explosion” without even cracking open my Canadian Oxford. One could quite easily argue the Big Bang WAS an explosion; it was the sudden expansion of something, which is a definition of “explosion” recognized in every good dictionary.
That would be a very effective way to make them not interested in listening to you anymore. Is our goal here to get people interested in science or pissed at us?
I was privileged to view a sneak preview of the first episode, with no ads. It didn’t seem choppy to me. NDT seems well-suited to these educational videos. In the Q&A he was witty and captivating. Here’s a video: [COSMOS] Neil deGrasse Tyson & Ann Druyan Q&A Part 1 (2014 Feb 14) - YouTube (best answer to which is the most romantic phenomenon)
I think this may have some effect on people preferring the first series.
You do realize that the “Cambrian Explosion,” also wasn’t an “explosion.” Yet, I believe Sagan referred to it that way.
Well the mainstream media disagrees. CNN’s headline is that “Cosmos dazzles”.
Plus Wil Wheaton thought it was great. And of the random internet people whose opinions I value, where do you think you stand compared to Wil Wheaton?? 
Maybe I’ll have my own opinion when I get a chance to watch it…
Will you seriously start using the quote function? This shit is annoying as fuck. And since you’re always going on about how this board is for fighting ignorance* why don’t you fight some of your own and use the quote function. Because this shit makes you look retarded with a capitol durp.
Like you doing right here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17179752&postcount=86
As usual you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you had ever even seen NASCAR you’d know about all the Science and Educational stuff they show during the breaks and half-time. It was while I was watching NASCAR some years ago when I first learned about the humping kangaroo. It’s exctinct now but it was the humpingist animal that ever lived.
I’ve liked Tyson ever since he pointed out to Jon Stewart that the globe in the opening sequence is turning the wrong way, and for knocking out Michael Spinks. 
I’m surprised that Fox is airing something that flies in the face of creationism, but I have to grudgingly respect some of their programming, i.e., Justified.
Yes. Surely we are too strong in our dismissal of NASCAR and its educational benefits.
As for the OP and his hysterical vagina inversion about the explosion, get a grip. I’m pretty sure the big bang was invisible to human eyes, so bitching about the graphic is a little stupid.
To be clear, Bruno’s fate did not arise because of his theories about there being countless stars that were just like the Sun and had planets with life – which, obviously, turned out to be correct, or very likely correct.
His fate came about because he denied Jesus’ divinity, said that Satan would be saved, and that Jesus had been a skilfull magician.
The thing is… PEOPLE in Europe in 1600 would be considered jerks for a wide variety of reasons by observers in this day and age. They were not strong supporters of “No means no,” or of equality of opportunity for women in the workplace. They were not LGBT friendly. Slavery was perfectly acceptable. If you weren’t royal or noble, you could get the death penalty for hunting an edible animal. (I suppose that PETA would approve of this one).
The pilot episode of the original COSMOS kinda sucked as well. Just a lot of Sagan talking about all he was gonna do in the series and his silly newage crystal spaceship. Let’s not make the backwards looking glasses too rose tinted, shall we?
(haven’t watched the new series pilot yet, on the docket for tonight).
The hyperbole in some of the criticisms reminds me of the sort of stuff you see in any other fanboy reaction to a new chapter in an established property. “This X-Men movie was horrible! Wolverine was too tall! And where was his yellow costume??? The whole movie was ruined!!!”
The whole thing worked beautifully for me. It may not work for others and that’s fine, too. But criticisms that amount to “It wasn’t exactly what I had in my head and therefore it sucked!!!” don’t stop seeming less rational just because it’s a science show you’re talking about instead of the latest Star Trek movie.
I don’t think anyone said they weren’t like that?
My point is that she saw the animation and didn’t think, “oh, wow, science requires the ability to challenge established dogma,” she just thought the inquisitors were being dicks.
I agree. They should have hired Brian Cox. He is much more exuberant and instills a sense of wonder, like Carl Sagan did.
While I do like Neil deGrasse Tyson he was not the man for this job.
Not a “kaboom” like dynamite, or a “fwoomp” like an over-fueled barbecue, but it’s most like a “bam-tweeeewweeeeweeeee” like a 1920’s-style cowboy bullet ricochet.
I’m pleasantly open-minded about future episodes. I didn’t come into it expecting to learn anything, instead being more interested in how well the show and NdGT would deliver the science message to the new kids. Overall, pleasantly surprised, and I agree with others that having it hosted on a major network is a greater benefit than the pain of enduring the commercials.
edit: I’m personally not a fan of Brian Cox’s delivery style. He’s very drowsy and droning in his speaking, reminds me of Dick Cavett, puts me to sleep regardless of what he’s talking about.
Thank og the internet wasn’t readily available back when the original COSMOS premiered. I can just hear it now…
"Sagan was horrible, he can’t even pronounce words!!!
“Why didn’t his spaceship have USA markings and insignia on it, is he some kind of communist or something?”
" Why use a dandelion seed in that scene? A pussy willow seed would have been more believable?
Okay, that last one I’ll admit I just used so I could sneak pussy willow into a post. Bucket list item checked off!
shrug I enjoyed the show and look forward to the whole series. I think some folks have a rather rose colored view of the original series. I mean, I certainly loved it at the time, but watching it now you can see some of the flaws in it. It was far from perfect, and the main point is that it reached a relatively small percentage of the people (mainly it looks like Straight Dope geeks and similar folks :p). THIS show will reach a much larger audience.
As to some of the grips in the OP, well…the commercials were commercials. Price you pay for a wider audience. From reading the OP it seems s/he never watches anything outside of PBS. I generally record everything on DVR and just fast forward through them anyway. The explosion graphics about the big bang? Meh. I’ve seen physicists calling it an ‘explosion’ many times, my profs in college called it an ‘explosion’, and it seems a fairly descriptive and colorful phrase that the general public, who this show is targeted on, will be able to easily grasp, even if it’s not exactly precise (though I’d be interested in what the OP WOULD have called it on the show). As for NGT, I love that guy and thought he did a good job in this pilot show. I think there is good potential here, if you can just get past the fact that it’s not the original Cosmos, and that it’s targeted on a wider audience beyond PBS science geeks or renaissance liberals (I say this not to be derogatory, since I watched and loved the original show myself). Give it a chance and see how it goes. And if you are honest, recall that the first Cosmos pilot wasn’t that great either because it’s a pilot…it’s the individual shows that should bring out the depth and pageantry of the universe and of science…the pilot is just a tease of things to come.
(Why is this in the Pit, btw? Seems a bit weak and really should be in CS to discuss the show)
Well, naturally, but I think most people know that by now.
One thing to remember is that a lot of men from your poorer families went into the priesthood because that was the only way to actually get an education. So for all of this, “the Church held back science!” crap that’s always being spewed here, keep in mind that many great minds in history wouldn’t have had these opportunities otherwise.
(Note – I’m not defending the church in all areas. But to simply put it as – “science would be sooo much farther ahead, and people like Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel would have achieved so much MORE if they had been atheists”…well, maybe not.)
I loved it! A great show for the general audience!
The production values for the 3D animation was astounding and even the pared-down animation for the Bruno segment was stylish and effective. Let’s not forget the kind of budget most television shows have to work with.
I love that NDT is the voice of this show. I love that the rockstar astrophysicist is a minority and that has mainstream appeal. I love the irony of the people in this thread for the same things Sagan was dissed for.
Most of all, it’s a seriously enormous win that this show exists at all. There are scant examples of mainstream programming that encourage scientific critical thinking and the results are having an effect. We have a Creation Museum for fuck’s sake. We have smirking morons seriously thinking their questions are some kind of “gotcha yas.” So for everyone bitching that they didn’t turn back time and re-air the dated show that Sagan’s co-creator and widow believed sorely needed an update, thank your lucky starstuff it exists at all.