8 ms·

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 Ea

by markbao 15y ago

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 Episode 1: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63317/cosmos-the-shores-of-the-cosmic-ocean#s-p3-so-i0 http://www.hulu.com/watch/63317/cosmos-the-shores-of-the-cos...

frossie 15y ago
Yeah, but Neil de Grasse Tyson, fine chap that he is, doesn't have anything like Carl Sagan's charisma.
- ugh 15y ago
  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.
- acangiano 15y ago
  Good thing that science has charisma aplenty.
- Cushman 15y ago
  They can fix that in post now.
- bcrescimanno 15y ago
  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 to Cosmos, I certainly hope so.
  - drgath 15y ago
    Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX." It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion. FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      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 coverage that aligns to their political bias. As the TV viewing population has skewed older, Fox News has pushed even further to the right to match their target market. Likewise, the business opportunity for the Fox network was young adults. (And for The Sun in 1970, the target market was presumably working class British males who wanted to see topless girls in their tabloids.)
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - mkr-hn 15y ago
        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.
        philwelch 15y ago
        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.
- angrycoder 15y ago
  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.
  - angstrom 15y ago
    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.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  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-elements-of-a-great-presenter.html 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 able to project that much love and empathy for others without the use of psychedelics or empathogens, at least in western society.) edit: I would define charisma more as the ability to make yourself loveable, which is basically the opposite of what Sagan does so well.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    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.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      >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/ http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
- drgath 15y ago
  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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o Sure I'd love to have Carl back to do Cosmos II as well, but unfortunately that isn't possible.
  - spottiness 15y ago
    I have mixed feelings about Neil. He certainly have the credentials and I like him, although he's never serious enough for me. I just watched the Youtube video that you pointed to, and there he sounds like a religious preacher. I found very weak points in his arguments, easily refutable. I hope that the sequel also targets a sophisticated audience: those of us that loved the original when we were kids and have continued evolving our brains for decades.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      To me, Neil always seems like he's talking to children. This is great for children. But as an adult who already knows 95% of what he's talking about it comes across as a bit grating. Carl Sagan could tell you what you already knew, and you'd still be happy to hear it, because he'd just remind you how awesome this stuff you already know actually is.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > 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.
    - geoffry 15y ago
      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?
vonhonkington 15y ago
i didn't find Planet Earth to be nearly as compelling as David Attenborough's Life of Mammals/Birds/Insects. the former was constantly trying to wow me with its photography (with narration reminding me to be wowed), while the latter had more profound things to say about ecology and evolution.
vynch 15y ago
Thanks for the link mark!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
spooneybarger 15y ago
Given the choice between the same subject matter presented by CS or NDT, I'll take NDT. I doubt I'm the only one despite the iconic stature that CS has.
hugh3 15y ago
Y'know, I've never actually seen much of Cosmos, but I'd like to put in a plug for my favourite 80s documentary series, David Attenborough's Life On Earth.

by markbao 15y ago

frossie 15y ago

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

ugh 15y ago
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.
acangiano 15y ago
Good thing that science has charisma aplenty.
Cushman 15y ago
They can fix that in post now.
bcrescimanno 15y ago
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 to Cosmos, I certainly hope so.
- drgath 15y ago
  Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX." It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion. FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    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 coverage that aligns to their political bias. As the TV viewing population has skewed older, Fox News has pushed even further to the right to match their target market. Likewise, the business opportunity for the Fox network was young adults. (And for The Sun in 1970, the target market was presumably working class British males who wanted to see topless girls in their tabloids.)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - mkr-hn 15y ago
      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.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        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.
angrycoder 15y ago
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.
- angstrom 15y ago
  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.
Alex3917 15y ago
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-elements-of-a-great-presenter.html 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 able to project that much love and empathy for others without the use of psychedelics or empathogens, at least in western society.) edit: I would define charisma more as the ability to make yourself loveable, which is basically the opposite of what Sagan does so well.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  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.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    >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/ http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
drgath 15y ago
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o Sure I'd love to have Carl back to do Cosmos II as well, but unfortunately that isn't possible.
- spottiness 15y ago
  I have mixed feelings about Neil. He certainly have the credentials and I like him, although he's never serious enough for me. I just watched the Youtube video that you pointed to, and there he sounds like a religious preacher. I found very weak points in his arguments, easily refutable. I hope that the sequel also targets a sophisticated audience: those of us that loved the original when we were kids and have continued evolving our brains for decades.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    To me, Neil always seems like he's talking to children. This is great for children. But as an adult who already knows 95% of what he's talking about it comes across as a bit grating. Carl Sagan could tell you what you already knew, and you'd still be happy to hear it, because he'd just remind you how awesome this stuff you already know actually is.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > 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.
  - geoffry 15y ago
    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?

vonhonkington 15y ago

i didn't find Planet Earth to be nearly as compelling as David Attenborough's Life of Mammals/Birds/Insects. the former was constantly trying to wow me with its photography (with narration reminding me to be wowed), while the latter had more profound things to say about ecology and evolution.

vynch 15y ago

Thanks for the link mark!

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

spooneybarger 15y ago

Given the choice between the same subject matter presented by CS or NDT, I'll take NDT. I doubt I'm the only one despite the iconic stature that CS has.

hugh3 15y ago

Y'know, I've never actually seen much of Cosmos, but I'd like to put in a plug for my favourite 80s documentary series, David Attenborough's Life On Earth.