3 ms·

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

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.

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.