10 Mar 14
Ann Druyan doing the reboot with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Great show! I learned about Bruno who was burned at the stake for daring to suggest the Earth spun around the sun and not vice versa, and Lucretius, a poet philospher from a few decades BC who talked about atoms and Earth spinning round the sun and such. Great graphics on that new version.
Learned a bit about Carl Sagan, he made a lot more discoveries than I thought. I thought his big claim to fame was the prediction that Venus was around 900 degrees F but he did a lot more than that. Great man.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's off to an auspicious start. Not sure I'll like the music as much, but the graphics are certainly excellent.
Ann Druyan doing the reboot with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Great show! I learned about Bruno who was burned at the stake for daring to suggest the Earth spun around the sun and not vice versa, and Lucretius, a poet philospher from a few decades BC who talked about atoms and Earth spinning round the sun and such. Great graphics on that new version.
Learned ...[text shortened]... s the prediction that Venus was around 900 degrees F but he did a lot more than that. Great man.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt seemed to start out with more on the religion/science conflict than the original, but (a) memory fails me and (b) it is not a bad thing.
Ann Druyan doing the reboot with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Great show! I learned about Bruno who was burned at the stake for daring to suggest the Earth spun around the sun and not vice versa, and Lucretius, a poet philospher from a few decades BC who talked about atoms and Earth spinning round the sun and such. Great graphics on that new version.
Learned ...[text shortened]... s the prediction that Venus was around 900 degrees F but he did a lot more than that. Great man.
12 Mar 14
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/where-does-the-adbc-dating-convention-come-from/
I was already on record as expressing scepticism about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s forthcoming Cosmos television series, as I view his knowledge of the history of science as at least as bad if not worse than Carl Sagan’s was and that was pretty terrible...
Yesterday evening my Twitter stream was full of people wondering what I would have thought of N dG T’s elevation of Giordano Bruno to the status of a great scientific thinker. Fortunately I can’t view Cosmos here in Germany and so I was spared this particular piece of history of science inanity
12 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockHow can someone make such criticisms without watching the show? If they had, they would have found out they SAID he was not a scientific thinker, only working on intuition.
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/where-does-the-adbc-dating-convention-come-from/
I was already on record as expressing scepticism about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s forthcoming Cosmos television series, as I view his knowledge of the history of science as at least as bad if not worse than Carl Sagan’s was and that was pretty terrible...
Yes ...[text shortened]... ere in Germany and so I was spared this particular piece of history of science inanity
There was no elevation to the level of Aristotle or some such by Tyson.
He was represented as just an early person who thought the world was not as represented by the church of the day, where you get burned at the stake for not believing the Earth to be the center of the universe.
Tyson even said Bruno was really stupid to have ever gone back to Italy in the first place.
Any show on science will have naysayers, that goes without saying, even though I just said it🙂
12 Mar 14
Did you really learn this:
Originally posted by sonhouse
Great show! I learned about Bruno who was burned at the stake for daring to suggest the Earth spun around the sun and not vice versa
from the new episode of Cosmos?
If you did then Cosmos taught you wrong because that's not what burned Bruno at the stake.
Also the criticism of the show isn't on its science but on its history of science which just as bad (if not worse) than the history of Science that was present in the original show.
But that's very normal. When you have regular scientists talking about the history of science they just say crap.
PS: I'll try to the see episode online and then get back at you.
12 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat is your version of what burned Bruno's ass? This Wiki seems to say the same thing Tyson was saying:
Did you really learn this:
Originally posted by sonhouse
[b]Great show! I learned about Bruno who was burned at the stake for daring to suggest the Earth spun around the sun and not vice versa
from the new episode of Cosmos?
If you did then Cosmos taught you wrong because that's not what burned Bruno at the stake.
Also the critic ...[text shortened]... science they just say crap.
PS: I'll try to the see episode online and then get back at you.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseNo my version, but the version of any serious scholar. What burned Bruno's ass was (as you can see in the following link: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist)
What is your version of what burned Bruno's ass? This Wiki seems to say the same thing Tyson was saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.
On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather “an unusually skilled magician.” He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity.
There is a serious uproar of real scholars of history of science about the representation of Giordano Bruno in Cosmos and if you search on the web you'll find plenty of examples refuting the nonsense and inanity that was said.
Again: the original Cosmos also had a lot of awful "facts" about the history of science.
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by adam warlockThanks for showing that. I wonder if Tyson has seen all this uproar?
No my version, but the version of any serious scholar. What burned Bruno's ass was (as you can see in the following link: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist)
[quote]But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contri ...[text shortened]... aid.
Again: the original Cosmos also had a lot of awful "facts" about the history of science.
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat a blowhard that blogger is. Tyson did not elevate Bruno to the level of a great scientist; rather, he presented Bruno as something of a visionary who happened to make some correct guesses regarding the disposition of the universe. Tyson even said that Bruno had no evidence to back up his claims, and the point of the tale was to impress upon the viewer how free thought and inquiry were savagely suppressed in Europe half a millennium ago. Part of the story of science, which Cosmos purposes to tell, must include the revelation that science as we know it today is a relatively recent development.
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/where-does-the-adbc-dating-convention-come-from/
I was already on record as expressing scepticism about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s forthcoming Cosmos television series, as I view his knowledge of the history of science as at least as bad if not worse than Carl Sagan’s was and that was pretty terrible...
Yes ...[text shortened]... ere in Germany and so I was spared this particular piece of history of science inanity