OT: Thoughts on Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Submitted by The Geek on

I remember watching the original Cosmos starring Carl Sagan when I was a kid. My family watched the "new" Cosmos last night, with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although there were a few cheesy moments (e.g., "look at that asteroid... No, not that one... The one on the left"), overall I thought it was very interesting.

I can say this, my 17 and 13 year-old boys, and my 10 year-old daughter were absolutely riveted. There aren't many shows on prime-time TV that we can watch together, and enjoy healthy dialogue.

Knowing the education level on this board is a bit higher than others, I was wondering if any MGoBloggers watched, and if they liked it, or disliked it. Thoughts?

P.S. Please bear in mind the "no religion" tenet of this board... Thoughtful, tasteful dialogue is the goal.

mgobaran

March 10th, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^

Not an anti-vaxxer. Just hate needles. 

And yes, (thanks for the link) but I do understand theories in science, I just believe in my own heart that there is a possiblity that one day in the future, people may laugh at evolution as the reason people walk the earth. And as long as that exists as a possibility, I cannot truely accept evolution based on my knowledge*. I do not see the problem with that. 

* My knowledge on evolution is that one finch has a big beak, and another has a small beak, and that means we are advanced monkeys and everyone believes it. 

Monocle Smile

March 10th, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^

I could go into a medium-length lecture involving the absurdity of absolute certainty, the stark lack of effort you've apprarently put into educating yourself on an easily accessible topic, the fact that your heart does no thinking, and the possibility of monkeys flying out my ass, but I feel it would be a waste of time and this is not the place.

74polSKA

March 11th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^

Ok, this explains why evolution is "not just a theory", but isn't it talking specifically of microevolution? Where's all the evidence of macroevolution? And how do you get inorganic minerals to change to organic compounds by introducing a long period of time to the equation? Has that ever been observed by scientists? Just because something is considered the best theory by a lot of people doesn't mean it is correct. It also doesn't mean that other theories should be shut out of the discussion. If the alternatives to evolution are so laughable, why not let them all be taught and compared and contrasted in classrooms with the best information we have on all the theories. If evolution is indeed so vastly superior, then it will surely rise to the top.

Michigan Arrogance

March 11th, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^

R U SRS.

 

If the alternatives to evolution are so laughable, why not let them all be taught and compared and contrasted in classrooms with the best information we have on all the theories.

 

Look, the purpose of science education at the secondary and primary level is not to teach every alternative theory to the gravity, evolution, cancer, cell, Newtonian,atomic, electron theories. It's patently ridiculous. This is why:

If evolution is indeed so vastly superior, then it will surely rise to the top.

 

EVOLUTION HAS ALREADY RISEN TO THE TOP IN SCIENCE. THAT'S WHY IT IS TAUGHT IN CLASSROOMS. EVOLUTION TOOK THE ADAM & EVE CREATION BULLSHIT AND, IN SPITE OF ALL THE CULTURAL AND INSTUTIONAL MOMENTUM CREATION HAD, SHAT ALL OVER IT OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS.

74polSKA

March 11th, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^

I will never understand why people can't be civil about this. Why do you have to get angry and ridicule people with which you disagree? If you are trying to hurt my feelings, you aren't. So I hope you feel manly by making fun of people whose beliefs I kind of doubt you even know much aabout. You conveniently glossed over my questions about macroevolution too.

Michigan Arrogance

March 11th, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

happy reading.

it's incredibly frustrating when people who have absolutely no fucking idea about how science works or how evolution works basically say, "teach all the alternatives." that's just stupid. I have an alternative theory of gravity: you see, I think magic pixies drag all objects to the ground. Shall we teach the magic pixies theory of gravity to everyone in elementary school & HS too? It's only fair, afterall. I mean, if newtonian gravity theory is really so superior, let it rise to the top in schools. Hey, here's another idea: let's teach the alternative to D=M/V (I call it the "witch theory"). You see, my theory on density is that witches float because they have renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service. If you sink, you're innocent. if you float, you're a witch and shall be burned. I mean, if D=M/V is such a solid theory, then all the kids will clearly see that if we teach both theories.

Let's switch shoes for a moment. Imagine if I were harping on trying to get people to teach something in your sunday school at church/mosk/temple. Would you enjoy me coming in to your church and teaching against the fundamental tenents of your religion? Consider, I don't even know much about your religion- I'm sure I'm almost totally ignorant of it in fact.

Here's a deal I'm willing to strike: How about I stay out of your church and you stay out of my science classroom. Neither of us have a leg to stand on in the other's area, so let's agree to that. I'm in. Let's do it.

And I'm not ridiculing you, I'm ridculing a belief. laughable beliefs like pixies and witch density and creationism should be ridiculed, not respected. people should be respected, not beliefs. beliefs should be questioned & held to an evidentiary standard.

74polSKA

March 11th, 2014 at 11:10 PM ^

I look forward to reading the article. It will be interesting to see what has changed since I got my Environmental Geography degree 15 years ago. I'm not sure why you assume I have no science background, other than you can't possibly see why someone would choose not to believe everything they are taught in class. FWIW, I accept most of science as fact. It's those gray areas that can't really be explained by science that give me problems, like where did the primordial soup originate or if there was a Big Bang, why don't all the celestial bodies spin in the same direction? Maybe your article will clear things up for me.

Michigan Arrogance

March 12th, 2014 at 7:46 AM ^

why don't all the celestial bodies spin in the same direction?

this is why I assume you don't have a science background. you don't demonstrate any knowledge [edit: no, it's reall UNDERSTANDING] of the science behind the Big Bang or evolution. Assuming that an infinitecimal singularity whose initial composition is all energy and no matter would be spinning (which is a big assumption), as the universe expanded, the rotation rate would actually slow down (for the same reason that a figure skater slows down when their arms extend). Now, assuming a finite initial rotation speed, and the amount the universe has expanded since then (essentially infinity), it's no surprise that we don't observe rotation: it would be so close to zero that we likely couldn't observe it. Not to mention, that local gravitational influences cause torques that can change the amount of anular momentum an individual local system would have. In addition, angular momentum is a vector, so the DIRECTION of an objects spin (Counter clockwise, say) can cancel out the ang. mom. of a clockwise spinning object- resulting in a net ang mom of zero. So even if the ang mom of the universe has to be constant, individual objects within the system can spin in opposite directions to produce a net ang mom of zero. This angular momentum arguement is one of the more sophistic arguments I've read from creationists. Looks like you've been reading a lot of Ray Comfort literature. I mean, are we gonna argue that bananas were perfectly designed by god to fit into the hands of humans next? well, there goes evolution theory, everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqB4FOlCtls

I accept most of science as fact

Sure, as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrivite as described in your religion.

74polSKA

March 12th, 2014 at 7:53 AM ^

First and foremost in this discussion, I never said I want my religious beliefs taught in public schools. You can teach intelligent design without naming the "designer". I also think there is a difference between having "no science background" and being one of the guys on the Big Bang Theory (which I obviously am not and don't claim to be). I have never heard of this Ray Comfort guy (I am currently reading a book on science and Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza if that matters). I'll have to look into your angular momentum information. I've never heard it explained that way. As far as your last comment, I have never seen any science that has interfered with the narrative of my religion, which is why I agree with other posters that feel this "Science vs Religion" narrative is a fabrication by people (on both sides of the issue) with agendas. I could list many names of great scientific pioneers whose Christian beliefs did not preclude them from making some of the greatest discoveries in the history of man.

Michigan Arrogance

March 12th, 2014 at 9:31 AM ^

You can teach intelligent design without naming the "designer"

Not in a science classroom. Intelligent design is just a name change for creationism. No matter what you call it, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

***

and being one of the guys on the Big Bang Theory (which I obviously am not and don't claim to be)

I was one of those guys on BBT. Now I teach. I don't know as much about evolution compared to BBT. Nonetheless, I am very confident in saying 2 things:

  1. there is a lot of compelling evidence for the non-static evolution of the universe, commonly known at BBT. stellar and galactic metallicity measurements, particle & atomic theory, Inflation, labda-CDM model, CMB temperature measuements & anisotropies of the CMB power spectrum. stellar standard candle measurements and doppler effect velocity measurements. I could go on, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
  2. the amount & diversity of evidence for BBT amounts to a molehill when compared to the mountain of evidence for evolution via natural selection.

***

I'll have to look into your angular momentum information.

you do that. may I suggest:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/torque-angular-momentum/torque-tutorial/v/conservation-of-angular-momemtum

you may want to do backgroud research on moments (rotational inertia), torque and angular velocity all of which can be found at that site.

***

I could list many names of great scientific pioneers whose Christian beliefs did not preclude them from making some of the greatest discoveries in the history of man.

No one would dispute this. As I mentioned in this thread somewhere else: NOT all religious/devout people attack science, but ALL people who attack science are religious/devout. And they aren't attacking just any/all science, just the parts that make them feel "squishy" about their faith. Not gravity, but biological evolution via natural selection. Not cancer, or quantum theory, but BBT.

***

I have never seen any science that has interfered with the narrative of my religion,

could have fooled me. it sounds like BBT and evolution via natural selection seem to slightly interfere.

 

74polSKA

March 12th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

I would agree that  a lot of people want to fight science because it makes them feel "squishy" as you put it. Mainstream Christianity as a whole seems to worry that the way science is taught will weaken or destroy people's faith. I do not fall into this camp. I don't doubt some aspects of science because of my faith. I doubt them because my experience with science, which is much more limited than yours obviously, is that eventually you reach a point where even science requires faith in order to be accepted. Whether it's faith in someone else's research or faith in man's understanding of the laws of the universe, at some point there are things in science that can't be proven without doubt. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just the reality of the universe in which we live. I believe it is at these points that someone with your perspective puts their faith in their contemporaries and the scientific process. I choose to put my faith in something else. I respect your position and hope you can respect mine. I really do appreciate the information and will read it as I have time. I have also enjoyed the discussion. Most of the people I'm around during the day don't have the interest or capacity for this type of thinking.

Michigan Arrogance

March 12th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^

yeah, I'm not expecting much from the Yankees this year, especially from Jeter, unfortunately. Too much time off this late in his career doesn't bode well. I'm expecting about 130 games played- probably only 80 at SS. About .230 BA, .290 SLG, .350 OBP. 50-60 RBIs, 3-5 HRs, 70-80 runs scored.

people will knock him for being overrated and having so much media attention- but that's nothing new.

74polSKA

March 12th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

Yeah, how quickly they forget about guys like Ripken and their "farewell tours". A year off definitely won't help the captain, but I think he still has more gas in the tank than people want to think. I actually like some of the position moves the team made. The big question mark will be the rotation I think. I hope Robertson took lessons from Mo too!

pescadero

March 12th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^

". I doubt them because my experience with science, which is much more limited than yours obviously, is that eventually you reach a point where even science requires faith in order to be accepted."

 

Only if we want to re-define faith.

 

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

74polSKA

March 12th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^

What if your standard of "proof" is different from mine? I think that's where the "faith" in the scientific process enters the equation. Is a consensus among scientists really "proof" that a theory is infallible? If so, nothing that has ever been proven could later be proven wrong. Also, I could explain why I believe much of my faith is based on logical proof and material evidence, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

pescadero

March 12th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

"What if your standard of "proof" is different from mine?"

 

It doesn't really matter at all - because science doesn't do proof.

Science is in the business of providing the best, predicitive, falsifiable model for the existing evidence. Nothin more, nothing less. It is not truth and it is not in the business of proof.

 

 

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."



-Karl Popper

 

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”



- Richard Feynman

 

"Is a consensus among scientists really "proof" that a theory is infallible?"

 

No - and THAT is the POSITIVE about science.

 

"If so, nothing that has ever been proven could later be proven wrong."

 

Nothing that has ever been proven could be later be proven wrong. Good thing science has never proven anything, nor claimed to.

 

"Also, I could explain why I believe much of my faith is based on logical proof and material evidence, but this isn't the place for that discussion."

Your faith can't be based on logical proof and material evidence - if it were it wouldn't be faith by definition.

 

74polSKA

March 12th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^

Now I'm confused. Science isn't based on proof? So there must be material evidence for every single scientific idea or that would mean science is a system of faith to some degree, right? I also didn't say my faith is entirely based on material evidence. I said much of it is and my faith fills in the gaps, just as faith in the scientific method fills in the gaps for you. Edit: I use faith to mean my belief system as well as faith in the unknown. Sorry if this is confusing.

pescadero

March 12th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^

"Science isn't based on proof?"

 

No, science is based on the preponderance of evidence. Science is NOT truth. In science things can be disproved (see: falsifiability) but no matter how much evidence exists are NEVER proved.

 

Outside of formal, human created, closed systems (like mathematics and formal logic) - proof does not exist.

 

Science is merely a method for investigating natural phenomenon. Science attempts to provide the best, predicitve, falsifiable model to explain the existing evidence.

 

 

pescadero

March 13th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

If there is no material evidence - it isn't a scientific theory.

Science never requires faith.

 

Now, some PEOPLE may have faith in science - but all scientific theories are supported by material evidence and have yet to be disproven.

 

 

74polSKA

March 13th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^

What is your definition of material evidence then? To me, it means actual tangible, physical, observable (in the phyisical world, not someone's mind) evidence. If your definition includes "the preponderance of evidence", then I guess you're right, science doesn't require faith. Sorry to have wasted both our time with the last few posts.

Doc Brown

March 10th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^

I think your problem is with the two definitions of "theory." The everyday definition is that a theory in tenuous. A scientific theory is anything but tenuous. It is backed up with mounds upon mounds of empirical evidence to the point of being a fact. Evolution is on the same plane as gravity, quantum mechanics, and genetics. It is a foundation of modern biology heck, for other fields as well. I think you are confusing the word theory with hypothesis.

saveferris

March 12th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^

Newton's Laws of Motion have not been proven wrong, it's just some of them have been shown to be specific cases of larger relativistic cosmology.

But your overall premise of the definition of "theory" is correct.  Theory in the context of science is a prinicple that has a very strong foundation of data to support it.

pescadero

March 12th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^

"Newton's Laws of Motion have not been proven wrong, it's just some of them have been shown to be specific cases of larger relativistic cosmology."

 

They are useful models which are known to be wrong. They are not generally applicable. They ignore relatavistic effects.

 

Does that mean they're useless? No. Sometimes inaccurate models are better than accurate ones, as long as they're "good enough" in your region of interest... but they still aren't "right".

 

 

Njia

March 11th, 2014 at 9:17 AM ^

"Evolution is happening" is an "absolute" statement as described above.

I happen to think that the Theory of Evolution is correct in the main, but a theory is - by definition - an explanation of available evidence that can - and will - be supplanted by other theories as more data becomes available. Moreover, a single piece of data can invalidate an entire raft of theories that stood for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. As such, a theory is - itself - an opinion.

That applies whether we are discussing evolution, climate change, economics, physics, chemistry, etc. 

Michigan Arrogance

March 11th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^

As such, a theory is - itself - an opinion.

 

re: evolution: Sure, an opinion that has a mountain of evidence in support of it. As opposed to say, my opinion that the Sun will rise in the West tomorrow AM.

you're not understanding the difference b/t a hypothesis (closer to an opinion) and a theory. Hypotheses can be invalid based on one piece of counter evidence- theories can not b/c they have mountains of evidence, predicted observations, and experiment in support of them. Generally, it would take more than one single piece of data to counterbalance the evidence in support of evolution.

74polSKA

March 11th, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^

People in this thread keep talking about this mountain of evidence that proves evolution. There is a big difference between having evidence of microevolution or specialization within a species and macroevolution or change from one species to another. Also, where did the living material come from in the first place?

Njia

March 12th, 2014 at 8:58 AM ^

Wikipedia has a great definition of "scientific theory":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So, I will stipulate on my use of the term "opinion" ("explanation" is used here and I admit it's better). At no time did I mean to equate scientific theory with "speculation", however. I am an engineer, after all, so - with all due respect - up yours. I know what a scientific theory is.

Theories are not immutable as they do change and even a single piece of the right information can be enough if it provides a better explanation for observed phenomena. That's where I think you went too far with your point. Even Newton's Laws, while simple, have been found to have their limits

Michigan Arrogance

March 12th, 2014 at 9:45 AM ^

theories are not EASILY immutable if the theory is a strong one. so yeah a ...

single piece of the right information can be enough if it provides a better explanation for observed phenomena.

so, observing an apple falling upwards. yes, that would throw a wrench into gravity theory. An equivalent wrench would be finding a dinosaur fossil chained to an ancient house structure circa 6000 BC. and radiologically dating all the fossil and structure to 8000 years ago. Yabba dabba do.

 

If I misinterpreted your level of understanding of scientific theory based on your misuse of the word 'opinion,' then sorry for that.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^

At some point in the show I can almost promise you that they'll bring up dark matter, will proclaim it a theory, and then talk about it like they know it exists. But I'm not nearly as certain. 

I know the reasons they think it exists, I know the justifications they use to say it exists, and it very well may exist. I also believe that there is simply a good chance that the equations we use are good approximations at certain scales and not necessarily at others. We've been searching for a unified theory for over a century to unite two extremely different scales (quantum and general relativity), yet have been unable. Yet we assume there is no upper bound on these physics and that we some how, magically were capable or forming fairly simplied equations that explain the entire universe? I'm not sure I buy it, just like I'm not sure I buy dark matter rather than our approximations and equations at a massive scale simply not being that accurate.

So there is a widely held belief that I differ on than most "in the know". But there are others "in the know" that would agree with me. There were others "in the know" in the past that now are considered wrong. Reasons change, theories change. I wouldn't be surprised if in another 100 years the Big Bang Theory was antiquated.

The point being in this rambling rant, that we don't necessarily have to reject everything, but we don't necessarily need to agree with it. I could reject evolution if there was something else of merit. I could be religious and believe that a God that can create a universe could create beings that evolve. I could believe a lot of different things. It doesn't need to be grouped and sectioned off as one or the other. If it was, we wouldn't have the knowledge that we have today. So thank goodness it's not.

FWIW, much of science, knowledge, and technology we have today is at worst indirectly paid for by religion, and often times paid directly by religion. This discussion doesn't need to get into an argument between science and religion because they don't have to be exclusive to one another, though there seem to be a group on both sides that believe it does.

Monocle Smile

March 10th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^

NO ONE HERE discussing science is dealing in absolutes. NO ONE. You just don't understand the topic even remotely. It's like you don't even understand what science is. See, when people discuss science, it's automatically taken for granted that absolute certainty is discarded. We assume that people aren't stupid. Maybe that's a mistake.