Jump to content


Photo

Error in new COSMOS

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
121 replies to this topic

#76 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4513
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:32 AM

It might help some to recognize the very significant difference between belief and knowledge.

Belief is faith-based . . . "I believe in God" or "I believe I could win the lottery."

Knowledge is fact based. It is a fact that if I drop something now it will fall to earth, based on knowledge about how gravity works.

You are never going to bridge the gap between the two because they are mutually exclusive.
 

#77 SteveRosenow

SteveRosenow

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Shelton, Washington

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:09 AM

It might help some to recognize the very significant difference between belief and knowledge.

Belief is faith-based . . . "I believe in God" or "I believe I could win the lottery."

Knowledge is fact based. It is a fact that if I drop something now it will fall to earth, based on knowledge about how gravity works.

You are never going to bridge the gap between the two because they are mutually exclusive.


And yet that is why religion has no business intermingling with science. It is also why I find a bit of hypocrisy in those who are in this hobby of amateur astronomy and at the same time attend the church (I have known a few personally). To me, the mere action of engaging in amateur astronomy and then going to church can be viewed by some as an oxymoron.

With respect to Neil deGrasse Tyson's remarks on our ancestral origins, they were spot on. For one, nearly all primates on this third stone from a class G star we call home, share an overwhelming majority of the exact same DNA markers - in some cases nearly 99% identical. And nearly all primates, along with humans, are the only species of mammalia on this planet with the exception of a very few marsupials, that carry opposable thumbs.
 

#78 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:10 AM

The whole program is nothing but wild speculation.


Like? Example? :question:
 

#79 Shane LaPierre

Shane LaPierre

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:20 AM

I appreciate the comments telling me (Pastor of a great church) telling me I can't be a thinking, knowledgeable amateur scientist and attend - or even lead a congregation.

Thanks for the boundaries.

Truthfully, I have no desire to bring this up on this forum... but I can't let this go. Just don't say anything. I'm pretty sure you have NO IDEA what you are talking about to make comments like that. Carry on.
 

#80 Chuck Hards

Chuck Hards

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5502
  • Joined: 03 May 2010
  • Loc: The Great Basin

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:24 AM

NGT lives in NYC. He's never actually *seen* the night sky. Give him a break. :lol:

- Jim


You were probably being facetious, but NdGT was actually an avid amateur astronomer as teenager, even before he started college. He attended youth astronomy camps under dark skies, away from his urban home.
 

#81 RodgerHouTex

RodgerHouTex

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:36 AM

:roflmao:

Good one Unk!
 

#82 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:37 PM

I'm pretty sure you have NO IDEA what you are talking about to make comments like that. Carry on.


I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. I have no idea, however, what you are talking about. Did you mean to reply to me or to someone else? :jedi:
 

#83 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:02 PM

NGT lives in NYC. He's never actually *seen* the night sky. Give him a break. :lol:

- Jim


You were probably being facetious, but NdGT was actually an avid amateur astronomer as teenager, even before he started college. He attended youth astronomy camps under dark skies, away from his urban home.


He's stIll into astronomy and uses an NP-101.
 

#84 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:04 PM

I'm pretty sure you have NO IDEA what you are talking about to make comments like that. Carry on.


I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. I have no idea, however, what you are talking about. Did you mean to reply to me or to someone else? :jedi:


Rod...he was replying to Steve Rosenow....just didn't do it correctly.
 

#85 Shane LaPierre

Shane LaPierre

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:45 PM

Rod - you are fine.

It's others on this thread. Let's just keep it to forum topics. No need to bash people's faith, pastors, belief in God that supposedly disqualifies them from amateur astronomy or any other thoughtful engagement. And it was more than 1 person - so that's the reason I didn't reply to a single comment.

Back to the topic - astronomy has no rock stars. That's the main problem I have with the show. If I want to digest information on cosmology, astro-science, etc. TV will be pretty low on the list unless they can have a quality delivery: which means I really have to like the host, or actors. This show really lacks that appeal for me... so I just can't get into it.

As far as inaccuracies, I think I don't like the "selling" of the multiple universes idea next to the more factual parts of the program. It gives someone's "what if's" the same credibility as ideas which are likely based in fact. I would have to list cosmology as one of the most difficult areas of science - since we observe events which have already occurred and are removed by great distances of time and space. The show should stick to ideas grounded in observation. This goes into science-fiction too quickly for my taste.
 

#86 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:48 PM

Rod - you are fine.


Thanks. When you are replying to someone, be sure to hit the REPLY button in the post you want to answer. Especially if, as in your post, you are calling someone out. ;)
 

#87 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:51 PM

Rod - you are fine.

It's others on this thread. Let's just keep it to forum topics. No need to bash people's faith, pastors, belief in God that supposedly disqualifies them from amateur astronomy or any other thoughtful engagement. And it was more than 1 person - so that's the reason I didn't reply to a single comment.

Back to the topic - astronomy has no rock stars. That's the main problem I have with the show. If I want to digest information on cosmology, astro-science, etc. TV will be pretty low on the list unless they can have a quality delivery: which means I really have to like the host, or actors. This show really lacks that appeal for me... so I just can't get into it.

As far as inaccuracies, I think I don't like the "selling" of the multiple universes idea next to the more factual parts of the program. It gives someone's "what if's" the same credibility as ideas which are likely based in fact. I would have to list cosmology as one of the most difficult areas of science - since we observe events which have already occurred and are removed by great distances of time and space. The show should stick to ideas grounded in observation. This goes into science-fiction too quickly for my taste.


Shane....Tyson correctly observed that the multiverse was not fact. And while astronomy may have no rock stars, it's also true that there's no one close to Tyson in recognition.
 

#88 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35823
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:44 PM

Interestingly enough, the recent data from BICEP2 lends support to the concept of a multiverse.

http://www.scientifi...inflation-gr...

Dave Mitsky
 

#89 beatlejuice

beatlejuice

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1591
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2011
  • Loc: Hamilton, ON,Canada

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:51 PM

I was not aware of the unleaded gas story and found the last episode to be the most compelling to date.

Eric
 

#90 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:54 PM

Interestingly enough, the recent data from BICEP2 lends support to the concept of a multiverse.

http://www.scientifi...inflation-gr...

Dave Mitsky


Yes, I had read about that too. I just wanted to point out that Tyson did not claim it as fact on COSMOS, though I have seen folks assert that he did.
 

#91 ylem

ylem

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 554
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Entropy, Monroe, NC

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:57 PM

I was not aware of the unleaded gas story and found the last episode to be the most compelling to date.

Eric


Yes, a lot of interesting tid bits on that show.
 

#92 Shane LaPierre

Shane LaPierre

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:28 PM

Agreed - he didn't present it as fact. But it leads me to the main issue I think the show is up against:

1) it is too weak to maintain strong appeal to those with moderate or more info on astronomy

2) there is no strong pull to "hook" the beginner in... (stronger host, better scripting, etc.) so they pull in ideas like the "Multiverse". Then all my friends ask me about this because that's the only thing they take from the show.

Just kind of a turn-off... only because I would love to sink my teeth into this series, but I just am not able to. I think there has always been an issue bringing astronomical/cosmological knowledge to the masses.
 

#93 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:36 PM

1. It's not designed to appeal to those who have more than a passing knowledge of astronomy.

2. My freshman astronomy students say you are utterly wrong. They love the show and Dr. Tyson.

3. Some peoples' religious and other views ensure they wouldn't care for the show no matter who hosted it.

;)
 

#94 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:47 PM

And yet that is why religion has no business intermingling with science. It is also why I find a bit of hypocrisy in those who are in this hobby of amateur astronomy and at the same time attend the church (I have known a few personally). To me, the mere action of engaging in amateur astronomy and then going to church can be viewed by some as an oxymoron.


I don't understand. Why shouldn't a person embrace faith as well as science?
"Religion" doesn't necessarily mean fundamentalism.
 

#95 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:51 PM

Back to the topic - astronomy has no rock stars. That's the main problem I have with the show. If I want to digest information on cosmology, astro-science, etc. TV will be pretty low on the list unless they can have a quality delivery: which means I really have to like the host, or actors. This show really lacks that appeal for me... so I just can't get into it.


Yeah; that's where Sagan really delivered the goods.
Carl, we miss ye, laddie!
 

#96 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:11 PM

Agreed - he didn't present it as fact. But it leads me to the main issue I think the show is up against:

1) it is too weak to maintain strong appeal to those with moderate or more info on astronomy

2) there is no strong pull to "hook" the beginner in... (stronger host, better scripting, etc.) so they pull in ideas like the "Multiverse". Then all my friends ask me about this because that's the only thing they take from the show.

Just kind of a turn-off... only because I would love to sink my teeth into this series, but I just am not able to. I think there has always been an issue bringing astronomical/cosmological knowledge to the masses.


Well, Shane, we obviously have some very different friends. Many of my friends are only casually interested in astronomy or science and have absolutely loved the show as well as Tyson. If he turns you off, fine. There are obviously quite a few that respond favorably to both him and the show.
 

#97 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:16 PM

And yet that is why religion has no business intermingling with science. It is also why I find a bit of hypocrisy in those who are in this hobby of amateur astronomy and at the same time attend the church (I have known a few personally). To me, the mere action of engaging in amateur astronomy and then going to church can be viewed by some as an oxymoron.


I don't understand. Why shouldn't a person embrace faith as well as science?
"Religion" doesn't necessarily mean fundamentalism.


I agree Rick that they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. The problem comes when some want to teach religion AS science in science class with public funds. And there is a well funded, vocal group that are bent on this very thing. Sagan was definitely opposed to this as is Tyson.
 

#98 stevecoe

stevecoe

    "Astronomical Tourist"

  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2004
  • Loc: Arizona, USA

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:35 PM

Let me make certain I have this correct:

I posted on this forum that I had spotted an error in the program that pointed out that few people making the COSMOS show are familiar with the sky.

Now, we are at evolution, science, what is a theory?, and a variety of other topics. Boy, am I sorry I posted to a modulated forum. Please shut this down.

Steve Coe
 

#99 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:32 PM

Of course there's a multiverse. Where do you think I came from?

:lol:

- Jim
 

#100 SteveRosenow

SteveRosenow

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Shelton, Washington

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:53 PM

And yet that is why religion has no business intermingling with science. It is also why I find a bit of hypocrisy in those who are in this hobby of amateur astronomy and at the same time attend the church (I have known a few personally). To me, the mere action of engaging in amateur astronomy and then going to church can be viewed by some as an oxymoron.


I don't understand. Why shouldn't a person embrace faith as well as science?
"Religion" doesn't necessarily mean fundamentalism.


IMO science and religion just don't mix nor belong together. There's nothing factually true in religious texts in relation to the origin of all we see, compared to scientific method which has thoroughly and wholeheartedly discredited the theory of 'Creationism' to an overwhelming degree of accuracy.
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics