Cosmos Will Get a Sequel • Hacker News Board

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#11

Post by drgath » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:34 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

frossie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.

I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own. The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?" For the sake of the integrity of a successor…

Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX."

It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion.

FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#12

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:36 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

frossie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.

I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own. The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?" For the sake of the integrity of a successor…

I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#13

Post by bcrescimanno » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:42 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own. The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?" For the sake of the integrity of a successor…

I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.

I refuse to get dragged into a silly debate about semantics; the context of my use of the word religion is quite clear and is well-accepted meaning as the word relates to organized religions which believe in the mythological.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#14

Post by cal5k » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:45 PM UTC

I think I'm most blown away by Seth MacFarlane's involvement in putting this together. I didn't know the guy had such a deep respect for science and a desire to impact our understanding of it.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#15

Post by vynch » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:47 PM UTC

markbao wrote: post #2

Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me. If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Epi…

Thanks for the link mark!

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#16

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

markbao wrote: post #2

Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me. If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Epi…

[deleted]

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#17

Post by spooneybarger » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

markbao wrote: post #2

Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me. If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Epi…

Given the choice between the same subject matter presented by CS or NDT, I'll take NDT. I doubt I'm the only one despite the iconic stature that CS has.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#18

Post by spooneybarger » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 7:00 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #13

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.

I refuse to get dragged into a silly debate about semantics; the context of my use of the word religion is quite clear and is well-accepted meaning as the word relates to organized religions which believe in the mythological.

This is one of the things that bothers me about HN. 'silly debate about semantics'. The meaning of words are important. Especially here on HN and on the internet in general where the meaning of words is all we have.

The religion v science dichotomy is quite prevalent here. Your suggestion that 'science' isn't belief in the mythological might not hold up so well given that 'science' today means expecting what comes from 'scientists' and bears little resemblance to classical science where anyone could reproduce the results.

Science has become so specialized, so expensive that you have to accept on faith that studies are true, or accept on faith the studies supporting the original or refuting it. Almost no one has the actual means to verify what we call science now.

If religion is based on faith, then it is hard to argue that science hasn't become a religion.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#19

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 7:01 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #13

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.

I refuse to get dragged into a silly debate about semantics; the context of my use of the word religion is quite clear and is well-accepted meaning as the word relates to organized religions which believe in the mythological.

I understood what you meant. That said, there are good reasons for why most contemporary religious scholars don't use the word that way. Besides the political reasons I mentioned, it also prevents one from understanding the majority of the world's religious traditions and modern religious movements. To think about the word the wrong way leads one to completely misunderstand (or worse, ignore) large swaths of the human experience, and some very important parts at that. (E.g. rock concerts, festival culture, entheogenic drug use, etc.)

I know you can get away with it on HN because most people don't actually care, but there legitimate reasons for why it actually matters.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#20

Post by spottiness » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 7:03 PM UTC

drgath wrote: post #10

frossie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.

Disagree. Neil is an amazing speaker and educator on science. I'd say the best since Carl Sagan. Like Carl, I'd be willing to sit down and listen to him talk about anything he wanted, for hours and hours, with the same sense of wonder and inspiration. If Carl was a poet, Neil is an orator. Here's a great example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o Sure I'd love to have Carl back to do Cosmos II as well, but u…

I have mixed feelings about Neil. He certainly have the credentials and I like him, although he's never serious enough for me. I just watched the Youtube video that you pointed to, and there he sounds like a religious preacher. I found very weak points in his arguments, easily refutable.

I hope that the sequel also targets a sophisticated audience: those of us that loved the original when we were kids and have continued evolving our brains for decades.