6 ms·

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.
  • Alex3917 15y ago
    I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.
    • bcrescimanno 15y ago
      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.
      • spooneybarger 15y ago
        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 from 'scientists' and bears little resemblance to classical science where anyone could reproduce the results. Science has become so specialized, so expensive that you have to accept on faith that studies are true, or accept on faith the studies supporting the original or refuting it. Almost no one has the actual means to verify what we call science now. If religion is based on faith, then it is hard to argue that science hasn't become a religion.
        • nickik 15y ago
          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 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • hugh3 15y ago
    The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul Murdoch is Australian, and conservatism and Christianity don't have nearly as much overlap as they do in America. I would be extremely surprised if Murdoch himself were anything other than agnostic/atheist. Incidentally, I've never been sure why anyone ever thought that religion was supposed to be "reassuring". I was raised Catholic, and all I got from religion was the assurance that God was going to torture me for all eternity if I didn't correctly obey a set of impossible, largely contradictory and incredibly vague rules. That's the least fucking reassuring thing you can tell someone.
    • wisty 15y ago
      I've heard it wasn't always that way in the US. Goldwater started it from the right, and the hippies started from the left. I've heard that until then, the Democrats were the big-government social conservatives, and the republicans were the more socially liberal big-business northerners. The whole "religious right" thing is kinda new. That said, Murdoch isn't a new conservative, by any stretch of the imagination. But don't try telling a Republican or a Democrat.
• 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?