Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#51

Post by troymc »

I only got around to seeing Cosmos when I was in graduate school, but I could see why it would inspire people to get into science. (For myself, I blame Isaac Asimov.)

One problem I have with a lot of science programs today is how they don't make it clear how we know what we know, or who figured it out. Science is presented as a bunch of facts rather than as something that was developed by people (who always have interesting stories). Carl Sagan didn't make that mistake, nor did Asimov, and I hope this new Cosmos sequel also takes the historical and human perspective.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#52

Post by philwelch »

mkr-hn wrote: post #50
philwelch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least. What people don't realize is that Fox News serves a commercial rather than an ideological agenda. The rest of the news media (especially when Fox News started) has a slightly liberal bias, which means the big business opportunity for Fox was right-wing news. It's not that they have a political agenda, they're just giving people what they want--news cover…

Ailes is an advocate for his political views, and business is just the latest way he advances them. Even if he's somehow uninvolved in content direction, Fox News doesn't get a free pass with "it's just business." A lot of destructive things have been done in the name of profit, and poisoning the national discourse is no different.

Ailes is a means to an end. If right wing news is the business opportunity you want to pursue, you hire Ailes. I'm speaking from the perspective of Murdoch here.

I never intend to justify Fox News, only explain it.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#53

Post by hugh3 »

icandoitbetter wrote: post #36
cal5k wrote: post #14

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4

That clip shows that he hates Christians, not that he loves science.

It's not even accurate (to the extent that any counterfactual can be considered accurate). If Christianity had never existed, would that have prevented the fall of the Roman Empire? Unlikely. Even if it had, were the Romans in the 3rd Century AD making huge strides in science before Christianity came along? Nope. And you'll note that when modern science did eventually arrive, it showed up in the Christian part of the world rather than the other 90%, which suggests Christianity can't be retarding scientific or technological progress that much.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#54

Post by burgerbrain »

hugh3 wrote: post #53
icandoitbetter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4

That clip shows that he hates Christians, not that he loves science. It's not even accurate (to the extent that any counterfactual can be considered accurate). If Christianity had never existed, would that have prevented the fall of the Roman Empire? Unlikely. Even if it had, were the Romans in the 3rd Century AD making huge strides in science before Christianity came along? Nope. And you'll note that when modern sci…

Does it show that he hates Christians? I would say it indicates he is strongly critical of the role Christianity has had on the world. The strongest that you could say is that it shows that he hates Christianity.

Hating Christians though? That is an unfounded allegation. For example, I hate all religions, including but obviously not limited to Judaism. However, if you said that I hate Jews, that would be slander. It is incredibly untrue.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#55

Post by lmarinho »

rbanffy wrote: post #49
lightcatcher wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum randomness. Hate to break it to you, but not happening.

Is it really random or is it that we don't know how all the rules work?

The prevailing theory is that it is truly random. Check out the Wikipedia entry on theories that aimed to eliminate that randomness, called hidden variable theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#56

Post by j_baker »

icandoitbetter wrote: post #36
cal5k wrote: post #14

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4

Also relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo&feature=youtu...

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#57

Post by jleyank »

Unless they get one big, honkin' corporate sponsor, any commercial-television follow-on to Cosmos will be broken up by commercials. Cosmos was done on PBS, which meant they could write for longer-duration episodes. 12-15 minute morsels will be more difficult to follow.

And if they assume that people's attention span are about that of house plants (which sums up Fox sports and the rapid-cut crap), it's going to be rather lightweight. If this is coupled with the "show rather than talk about" trend I've seen in Nova, it's going to fail as it'll take too much time to get the points across.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#58

Post by wisty »

hugh3 wrote: post #46
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…

The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul Murdoch is Australian, and conservatism and Christianity don't have nearly as much overlap as they do in America. I would be extremely surprised if Murdoch himself were anything other than agnostic/atheist. Incidentally, I've never been sure why anyone ever thought that religion was supposed to be "reassuring". I was raised…

I've heard it wasn't always that way in the US. Goldwater started it from the right, and the hippies started from the left. I've heard that until then, the Democrats were the big-government social conservatives, and the republicans were the more socially liberal big-business northerners. The whole "religious right" thing is kinda new. That said, Murdoch isn't a new conservative, by any stretch of the imagination.

But don't try telling a Republican or a Democrat.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#59

Post by brian_c »

troymc wrote: post #51

I only got around to seeing Cosmos when I was in graduate school, but I could see why it would inspire people to get into science. (For myself, I blame Isaac Asimov.) One problem I have with a lot of science programs today is how they don't make it clear how we know what we know, or who figured it out. Science is presented as a bunch of facts rather than as something that was developed by people (who always have inte…

Have you seen James Burke's Connections? Sounds like it'd be right up your alley. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/
Post reply on HN