Page 11 of 12

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:35 am
by Interbane
ries. We get about one per month where some discovery is hyped as fact only to discover in the fine print that it isn't really proven yet.
I think you're the only one expecting proof. From one of the researchers: “We now have a much stronger belief that we understand the early universe than we did yesterday,” says Sean Carroll, an astrophysicist at Caltech. Give it a while for the experiment to be refined and run again.
They had a nice CGA about it but I guess they needed to spend time with NDT wandering about the cavernous and seemingly mostly empty Hall of Extinction tomb so they couldn't afford to explain DNA's origin.
We could re-create life in a lab, and come up with 50 models on how it would have been possible in the pre-biotic soup. But for all that, we'll never truly know. Unless we build a time machine. Evolution is happening in the here and now, so we can study it. Abiogenesis is a billion years removed.

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:33 pm
by ant
Aside from the subtle shots thrown at the caricature of religion, I greatly enjoyed COSMOS - Episode 2
NDT is doing a great job (I really mean that) but should be above Seth McFarlen type arrogant sarcasm.

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:06 pm
by Interbane
NDT is doing a great job (I really mean that) but should be above Seth McFarlen type arrogant sarcasm.
I saw Seth on Bill Maher's show, and had the impression that he wasn't really the man for the job. I think some of the tone of the show - science vs religion - is directly from him. The person in his role should have a good understanding of how easy it is to polarize people.

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:56 pm
by ant
Interbane wrote:
NDT is doing a great job (I really mean that) but should be above Seth McFarlen type arrogant sarcasm.
I saw Seth on Bill Maher's show, and had the impression that he wasn't really the man for the job. I think some of the tone of the show - science vs religion - is directly from him. The person in his role should have a good understanding of how easy it is to polarize people.

I agree with everything you wrote.

Having said what I don't appreciate, if i had a child, I actually would be reserving the time for my child and I to view it.
It brings back found memories.

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:18 pm
by ant
I actually, in my layman research, have found a science hero that would have been a much better choice for COSMOS than Bruno, who obviously was selected for propaganda purposes.

Why not Thales of Miletus? (Wiki)
Thales of Miletus (/ˈθeɪliːz/; Greek: Θαλῆς (ὁ Μιλήσιος), Thalēs; c. 624 – c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher from Miletus in Asia Minor, and one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many, most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition.[1] According to Bertrand Russell, "Western philosophy begins with Thales."[2] Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world without reference to mythology. Those philosophers were also influential and eventually Thales' rejection of mythological explanations became an essential idea for the scientific revolution. He was also the first to define general principles and set forth hypotheses, and as a result has been dubbed the "Father of Science", though it is argued that Democritus is actually more deserving of this title.[3][4]
In mathematics, Thales used geometry to solve problems such as calculating the height of pyramids and the distance of ships from the shore. He is credited with the first use of deductive reasoning applied to geometry, by deriving four corollaries to Thales' Theorem. As a result, he has been hailed as the first true mathematician and is the first known individual to whom a mathematical discovery has been attributed.[5]
I think he was mentioned very briefly by Sagan.
A much, much better choice, in my opinion.
If I missed NDT mentioning him, please remind me.

Re: Cosmos ----why again?

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:30 am
by johnson1010
Lets all just call off this Neil DeGrasse Tyson version of Cosmos, and embrace one that can really teach us something!

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/04/creationis ... hy-simons/