Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - The Review (Got History Wrong)
Science 2.0 ^ | March 7, 2014 | Hank Campbell

Posted on 03/11/2014 6:05:11 AM PDT by C19fan

I missed the big Carl Sagan thing when it happened. I was in high school when Cosmos came out, we lived in the country and if you wanted to watch a different television network, you had to go up into the attic and turn a giant antenna with a pipe wrench. Sports and girls and D&D were more of a priority than television.

....................................................

Then suddenly we get a claim that Giordano Bruno is responsible for the concept of the universe - because he read 'banned' books. Lucretious wasn't science - there was no scientific evidence for his claim that wind caused earthquakes or worms spontaneously generated - it was philosophy, and his book was not rare in 1600 AD, people were also not martyred for reading it, and yet we get told a philosophical belief in infinity was what got Bruno into trouble.

(Excerpt) Read more at science20.com ...


TOPICS: History; Science; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: antichristian; antitheism; carlsagan; cosmos; cosmos2; cosmosreboot; giordanobruno; neildegrassetyson; revisionisthistory; universe; waronreligion; waronsciencememe
Sounds like the show is more about an agenda than science. Dr. Tyson is a vocal atheist and it looks like is going to push that hard.
1 posted on 03/11/2014 6:05:11 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Cosmos Revives the Scientific Martyr Myth of Giordano Bruno
2 posted on 03/11/2014 6:09:40 AM PDT by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
I love how Tyson described Bruno's visions as 'a stroke of luck'.

Bruno had a mind. He had dreams and visions. Repeatedly. And they were all just dumb luck? Please...what was it that gave him that mind? Gaia? The Universe?

I hope Tyson wrote that. Because it fits in well with what I know of him and my opinion of him. A knob.

3 posted on 03/11/2014 6:12:25 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Saw it.

An hour of TV dedicated to smearing the Catholic church.

Shameful.


4 posted on 03/11/2014 6:12:48 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Sounds like the show is more about an agenda than science. Dr. Tyson is a vocal atheist and it looks like is going to push that hard.

SOUNDS like YOU are correct on both points.

5 posted on 03/11/2014 6:26:33 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The big bang theory was originally proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaître but that hurts liberal science brains so they ignore it or lie about it.


6 posted on 03/11/2014 6:27:13 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
An hour of TV dedicated to smearing the Catholic church.
Shameful.

The smearing of the Catholic Church usually shows one or both things:
--fear
--ignorance.

BOTH are powerful, aren't they?

7 posted on 03/11/2014 6:28:39 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“Sagan succeeded because he communicated science without tearing other people down. Tyson does also but in the episode provided to me, the Bruno story came across as more of a program Richard Dawkins would have hosted than Carl Sagan. And that’s too bad, because Tyson is not divisive like that.”

I disagree, he is divisive, and he has no qualms tearing people down. In the ComicCon promo interview for Cosmos, he basically insulted every religious believer on the planet by implying that religion is just a bunch of made-up stories, and that the stories he is going to tell on Cosmos are better.


8 posted on 03/11/2014 6:30:39 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
(Wiki)Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.
9 posted on 03/11/2014 6:30:48 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I’m listening to Sam Sorbo for Andrea Tantaros and she played clips of Tyson saying, among other things, that the “world was created in six days” doesn’t hold up scientifically.

Yet he and Sagan both in episode one compressed the time from the Big Bang to today into one gigantic calendar year, with BB on Jan. 1 and today Dec. 31. Sure, it was just to illustrate the history of the universe in an easy to understand way for common folk - but what makes him think the Bible wasn’t doing exactly the same thing for people back then?

I don’t know. He doesn’t know. God only knows (well, and whoever wrote Genesis; Moses?).

Elites really drive me nuts. Okay, it’s a short drive anyway....

cheers,
Jim


10 posted on 03/11/2014 6:40:11 AM PDT by gymbeau (Tagline under consideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Tyson is entertaining, and likeable, but he is no Carl Sagan.

I DO appreciate his work, though. He once told a little girl what asked about going into science when she grows up something like “that’s the good thing about going into science- you never have to grow up”

Which is the most brilliant thing I ever heard him say. (and I agree because I am in science too so there nyah nyah)


11 posted on 03/11/2014 6:40:17 AM PDT by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C19fan; kingattax; SunkenCiv

Evidently the pictures of Deep Space were stunning and Beautiful.

That being said, if you want a daily “fix’ of Deep Space, without the leftist liberal anti-God agenda, get onto the APOD ping list here on FR! :-)

(Shameless Plug for “Astronomy Picture of the Day”)


12 posted on 03/11/2014 7:00:53 AM PDT by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

Considering that ones enemy reasons from “fear” or “ignorance” lends them a semblance of passivity and the target an illogical conclusion that mere education of the aggressor can be utilized to sway them.

More logical is the conclusion that the aggressor knows fully well their perceived enemy, and that any means or methods are being used by them to win or make their point.


13 posted on 03/11/2014 7:07:17 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Not only that, the big bang is a sure thing. The least these fools could do would be to couch these theories with words such as, “based on current observations, or scientific theory...”


14 posted on 03/11/2014 7:27:54 AM PDT by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
“that’s the good thing about going into science- you never have to grow up”

Back in the 90's I was out in the middle of nowhere in the Trinity Alps cleaning up some Jet-A spilled along a stream with my boss (both of us geologists). We were at a stage where we had to just stir up degraded granite sand to release the fuel while a pump cycled the water through activated carbon cannisters to soak it up.

The weather was spectacular, trout were [still, lol] swimming in the adjacent flowing stream and I looked at him and said "Did you ever, in your wildest dreams when you were a kid making mud pies or throwing rocks, think you'd grow up and get paid to do this?"

He chuckled and replied "no..."

He later had me drive his Jeep back down the mountian one evening so he could ride his racing bike down highway 299.

Geology = Field Good!, Office Bad! :-)

15 posted on 03/11/2014 7:28:22 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

bump


16 posted on 03/11/2014 10:44:08 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This thing was worse than my worst fears. Just awful. They had no voice, no message, no audience in mind. It does not rise to the level of hokey. An embarrassment, and worse, a wasted opportunity.

Carl Sagan was a good scientist and a great salesman. His vision, his message drove the original Cosmos. Dr. Tyson probably did as well as could be expected given the material, but he is very much a lesser epigone of Sagan. Great special effects and computer graphics in the service of a muddled and confused message. The fancy-schmatzy computer graphics added to the confusion and detracted from whatever message they thought they had. The cheesy “Also Sprach Zarathustra” Musik didn’t help, either. If you watched the first episode you know less about the cosmos than before.

Four rotten tomatoes. In case I wasn’t clear, I HATED IT.


17 posted on 03/11/2014 11:10:14 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (In the long run, we are all dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Maybe it would’ve been better if Cicely Tyson narrated it.


18 posted on 03/11/2014 11:28:54 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
considering that ones enemy reasons from “fear” or “ignorance” lends them a semblance of passivity and the target an illogical conclusion that mere education of the aggressor can be utilized to sway them.

Not all fearful or ignorant people react with passivity. THOSE have nothing to do with their character. FEAR is often a motivator as some people get ANGRY at being fearful. One can't predict another's response to fear.

As for ignorance, people STILL may react with anger when their IGNORANCE is ridiculed or challenged.

People can be swayed by a pretty/handsome face, by a good body, by bribery...or by who knows what. People aren't always predictable or readable.

19 posted on 03/11/2014 6:04:51 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
More logical is the conclusion that the aggressor knows fully well their perceived enemy, and that any means or methods are being used by them to win or make their point.

Sometimes this is true.

I suppose that the political arena DOES bring out the worst in many people.
When I was REALLY young and stupid I even had thoughts about being in politics. By the time I was in my early 20's I KNEW that politics was dirty, nasty, dishonest and corrupt.

Hah, then I lived in Mexico for two years. After THAT I thought that US politics were pretty clean.

After visiting African countries, living in Saudi Arabia for five years and visiting Russia in 2008, I KNEW that, however BAD we think our gubmin is, the USA is the very best place to live and work. We have our "warts" and DO try to correct them...but it doesn't always work.

20 posted on 03/11/2014 6:11:18 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Oh for goodness' sake, how many times must we dispel this fiction? Bruno wasn't burned at the stake for science.

Perhaps they'll find authoritative the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology ..."

21 posted on 03/12/2014 2:10:51 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("See something, say something.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson