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

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#21

Post by angstrom »

angrycoder wrote: post #8
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 dunno, I have seen him several times on Real Time with Bill Mahr and he does a fine job of holding his own on the panel. He even gave a couple of passionate rants that had the audience cheering last night.

I met him in NYC at the Union Square Barnes and Noble when he was promoting his book. He has a more whimsical tone to his charisma than Sagan. Sagan's was more reflective and focused. Both passionate about science and Cosmology.

I think Sagan's approach was fitting. I only worry that Neil's wit could be misinterpreted as arrogance by those who could benefit from a deeper appreciation of science and existence. Either way, I look forward to an updated reflection on what we've learned and seek to learn in the very near future.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#22

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> but unfortunately that isn't possible.

You know information is never truly destroyed. Bringing Dr. Sagan back will probably remain too difficult for a couple generations, but, eventually, we'll figure that one out.

And I can imagine the look on his face.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#23

Post by nickik »

spooneybarger wrote: post #18
bcrescimanno wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

Sure Science has become where spezialized and you personally can't reproduce every result from every sientist but what we can do is WAY WAY WAY better than just accepting it on faith the same way some people accept that god created earth in 7 days. What I mean is that we have to use the same word for both things but that does not mean that the two things are the same.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#24

Post by [deleted] »

nickik wrote: post #23
spooneybarger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

Sure Science has become where spezialized and you personally can't reproduce every result from every sientist but what we can do is WAY WAY WAY better than just accepting it on faith the same way some people accept that god created earth in 7 days. What I mean is that we have to use the same word for both things but that does not mean that the two things are the same.

[deleted]

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#25

Post by rbanffy »

Alex3917 wrote: post #9
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 generally with Seth Godin when he says that the two elements that make a great presentation are respect and love: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/the-two-elem... What makes Carl Sagan so good is that he has an extraordinary amount of love for the audience. It's pretty clear that this stems from his use of empathogenic drugs like cannabis. (Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be…

I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used. There are people who are born musicians or engineers (like me). He was born a teacher.

I watched Cosmos on my teens, late at night (actually, past midnight on Fridays, which made my early Saturday classes painful, but that's another story) on a TV station not particularly known for their love of science or reality. A couple posts back, there was a discussion opposing science and religion. Both are quests for ultimate truths opposed only by the methods of their search.

When I look deep in the sky, when I contemplate the mindboggingly vast emptiness punctuated by countless whirlpools of countless stars being violently born and evolving during the ages to their fiery (or cold) deaths, of which we only see an infinitesimal fraction, or the extremely small and quick, the things we cannot see, that we can barely measure and that are so faint that border non-existence, or the irrelevance of existence of pure math, it it's impossible not to feel the same deep wonder that's associated with religious experience. Science is humbling.

I do not envy the religious (or those who call themselves such) for they take a shortcut into a comforting notion of their Truth when it's not the destination that matters - it's the quest. I hope this new Cosmos puts more kids like me on the right path.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#26

Post by rbanffy »

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.

I am not sure of his respect for science, but I have seen abundant evidence of his contempt against religious obscurantism.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#27

Post by geoffry »

rbanffy wrote: post #22
drgath wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but unfortunately that isn't possible. You know information is never truly destroyed. Bringing Dr. Sagan back will probably remain too difficult for a couple generations, but, eventually, we'll figure that one out. And I can imagine the look on his face.

Even if you collected all the atoms that made up a person's brain, the most important information is lost. For starters, how would you know how those atoms were configured?

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#28

Post by ugh »

frossie wrote: post #3
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…

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

I’m really not sure how you would even begin to compare the two.

They are very different but both very great at what they do.

Re: Cosmos Will Get a Sequel

#30

Post by Alex3917 »

rbanffy wrote: post #25
Alex3917 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally with Seth Godin when he says that the two elements that make a great presentation are respect and love: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/the-two-elem... What makes Carl Sagan so good is that he has an extraordinary amount of love for the audience. It's pretty clear that this stems from his use of empathogenic drugs like cannabis. (Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be…

I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used. There are people who are born musicians or engineers (like me). He was born a teacher. I watched Cosmos on my teens, late at night (actually, past midnight on Fridays, which made my early Saturday classes painful, but that's another story) on a TV station not particularly known for their love of science or reality. A couple p…

>I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used.

Here are Sagan's own words about how cannabis use has increased his own love and empathy for others:

"The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I’m down." [...]

"The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I’ve had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds." [...]

"I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for."

source: http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

Post reply on HN