Cosmos is coming back. Were you a fan? Will you be this time?

I was (am) a fan. Thank-you for the heads up on Tyson’s show!

It won’t be the same, but it has a chance of being very good with the host they have picked.

I did like parts of Cosmos, but at times it was really, really boring and very samey episode to episode. I watched about 6 episodes on Netflix last year before I couldn’t watch it anymore. If this new one has Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I’m definitely interested.

I don’t share my hustle with anybody but The Hork.

I read this question, got super excited and then thought wait fuck….it’s really not going to be the same without Sagan, the only person I could think of that could fill those shoes would be Tyson… then I read that was precisely what was happening so I’m super excited again :P

I’m extremely excited about the new Cosmos, hosted by the extremely likeable and knowledgeable Neil deGrasse. Just wish I didn’t have to wait till next year. I loved the old series, but I’m optimistic that the new version will be even better with its vast array of newer knowledge and state-of-the-art special effects.

I don’t know. I was pretty appalled by the trailer.

I watched it too @Rarebear. I don’t even know what to say. Tyson looks to be acting quite a bit, like some mystic shaman techie. I never got that impression from Sagan.

I hope this series isn’t as over the top as the trailer proposes. But what else should be expected of McFarlan?

Tyson has never sat very well with me, even when he wasn’t trying to act like the OZ Wizard. I remember a presentation he gave a few years back, talking about how there couldn’t possibly be a God because of how stupidly humans were designed. No God would ever design a creation in a human form.

His shortsighted justification was an insult to the male homosexual community. He literally said that it’s stupid for genitals and anus to be so closely located on the human body. Paraphrasing him “Nobody would ever design a pleasure center next to a trash dump?” Of course, the crowd went wild with approval when he made that statement.

No one cared to consider the genitals more than a pleasure center. Or the anus more than a trash dump. No one dared consider the logical arrangement of the feces being a natural insulator for reproductive system. Or the anus another pleasure center for some.

I’ve always considered Tyson to be full of quick wit ad hoc statements that get applause for the intended audience, but don’t hold up very well under criticism.

I loved it as a kid. I have re-watched it many times.
I will be all over the update.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Oh come on. Dr. Tyson leveraged off of a tired old joke I heard back when I was a sophomore Chemistry major in college. The line is about a group of engineers arguing about what sort of engineer God turned to in designing humans.

The first engineer proposed “It must have been a mechanical engineer—just look at the variety of movements in all the joints of the body!”

The second engineer responded, “No, I think it must have been an electrical engineer—think of how the brain controls all the functions of the body via electrical impulses.”

The third engineer thought for a moment about his friend’s opinions, and then said, “No, it had to be a civil engineer—who else would run a sewer line through a recreational area???”

Personally, now that I am officially a shit-stirring legend on Fluther, I will publically state that I think the arrangement of the various human orifices was a divinely inspired idea.

This is supposed to be a TV program. It has to entertain an audience of average Americans. That’s not going to happen regardless of who hosts it if they stand up and give complex lectures on the calculus required to plot a course from here to Andromeda.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies To say that Tyson is insulting homosexuals is absurd. It is stupid that the genitals and the anus are so close to each other. It’s also stupid that the breathing tube and the eating tube are in the same place. He’s absolutely right about that.

Tyson is a hero of mine for many reasons. That’s why I was so disappointed in the trailer.

@ETpro “This is supposed to be a TV program. It has to entertain an audience…”

You know, you’re absolutely right. I’m often much too critical about these sort of things and I need to stop that. I’d never heard the “old” joke before either. Perhaps if I had, it would have smoothed Tyson’s dissertation for me… though I don’t believe he was joking.

@ETpro “I will publically state that I think the arrangement of the various human orifices was a divinely inspired idea.”

Now I’m really confused. Are you joking? Are you mocking? Or have you come to a belief in the divine? See below…

@Rarebear “Tyson is a hero of mine…”

Then out of respect for you, I will reconsider him with the respect he’s earned throughout his career. Seriously.

Now both of you @ETpro & @Rarebear… An honest question amongst friends. A fair question deserves to be asked.

If God is to be considered non existent, (or stupid), for designing mammals the way they are, ... let’s just say non-existent because that was Tyson’s point,... then we are left with the process of evolution to account for mammalian design, which, in your opinion, is less than optimal. Shall we then instead attribute the same imperfections to the process of evolution, even though it has served itself well enough to propel all life since the very beginning?

I don’t recall any species going extinct because their genitals and anus were too close together… or because they breath and eat out of the same plumbing.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’m just short of totally positive that if there is an intelligence that created the Universe, it does not intervene in the operation of the laws it ordained to operate it. The suspension of cause and effect is a thing that science most definitely test for, and we do not see it happening.

When I say divinely inspired I am speaking figuratively. And since this thread does not carry a NSFW disclaimer, I won’t expound further here on why I like the layout.

As to the perfection of evolution, now I have to ask “Are you joking?” Of all the species that have ever existed, over 99.5% are now extinct. Evolution is an ugly, exceedingly slow, messy process with tons of horrible outcomes. And that doesn’t even begin to touch all the genetic replication errors which killed their recipient at or shortly after birth. Lots of higher order animals now die from choking.

Re breathing and eating tubes, I think @Rarebear was referring to the potential a shared passageway introduces for choking to death. That does not happen in the cetaceans, who have evolved separate passages for breathing and eating.

I didn’t say evolution was perfect. I asked if the same imperfections that suggest a God could not exist could be be attributed to evolution instead. You seem to suggest that evolution is indeed imperfect and those imperfections can be attributed to evolutionary processes.

But wait… consider that evolution may indeed be perfect. For it attempts to perfect each organism for the particular environment at hand. It is not the fault of evolution that environment changes. We certainly cannot blame evolution for lacking foresight, and thereby failing to create an organism able to withstand unforeseen environmental changes. How then could evolution be held responsible for any extinctions? That crown sits atop the head of chaos.

But Gods are supposed to have that foreknowledge right? And we as humans have little patience for Gods that do not create us as the ultimate perfect being which can withstand environmental changes.

Consider… Is it not fallacious to justify a disbelief in a God upon the basis that it did not create us as perfect beings for every foreseeable environmental change? The Atheist’s paradox is that position completely disregards the entire basis of a physical realm in the first place. For otherwise, if we were perfect beings in a perfect realm, then this universe, and the life within it would be completely unwarranted. We’d all have just been created as, for lack of a better term… angels… non physical beings to dwell in a non physical plane of existence that doesn’t suffer the havoc of chaos.

There is a biblical principle which states:
Greater is he that is within me, than he that is in the world.

Point being, metaphorically speaking, this realm does not belong to he that is within me… God of Truth (Information). It belongs to he that is in the world… Satan father of Lies (Chaos).

This ain’t heaven. Shall we blame God for that? Shall we base a disbelief in a God because it isn’t?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Evolution absolutely does not “attempt to perfect each organism”. If you think this, you do not understand what it is at all. Even setting aside the fact that it can only lead to adaptations to current/past environments, never future ones, it doesn’t have will or desire. It is caused simply a difference in the number of individuals who are left as offspring, and what traits they inherit from their parents. That’s all. It can’t pick and choose traits to be handed down to future generations. The traits that are carried forward are not necessarily “the best” in every respect – or in some cases, in any respect. That’s why there are so many weird, inconvenient, or downright stupid features in our bodies, and the bodies of many living things. There’s no blueprint, no goal, there’s no judgment or assessment of what is needed going forward or how well everything functions right now. So sure, there are loads of imperfections that are due to evolution. It is not a process that perfects.

Hi glacial. Yes please forgive my poetic description for a scientific observation. I often chide others for doing so. I well know that evolution is not an entity with will or desire. That would be like claiming tree rings tell about growing seasons. There is no sentient faculty to tell, nor to desire. Keep in mind, that even the typical scientific description of how evolution works is also a poetic one. In reality, if evolution cannot desire, then it also cannot select.

We are limited with the words we have to speak upon these phenomenon. Even the qualifier of “natural” selection is insufficient. For that designation would require considering willful or controlled selection as somehow unnatural, or supernatural. I don’t believe there is anything unnatural or supernatural in choosing chocolate over vanilla.

As to what perfection, or imperfection are, can we not agree that both are judgements. Consider if we discovered life on a Saturn moon, thriving in an environment that we would not have expected it to thrive. Our first observation would be with astonishment, not judgement. It would be silly to judge that life imperfect for its environment. Only upon detailed observation would we reason that perfection away, and judge it to be somehow imperfect and improvable.

With the rarity of life found throughout the cosmos, and the fact that any life at all approaches the miraculous, I have a very difficult time accepting that any living thing is imperfect for the time and place in which it lived. Mathematically, it should never have existed in the first place.

Claiming imperfection for any life, to me, seems as shortsighted as science claiming that 95% of our genome is “junk”. We don’t know what we don’t know. We have no idea how correcting the “loads of imperfections” would truly affect our ability to thrive in any given environment. We’re as blind as evolution is. But unlike evolution, we wield the curse of judgement.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You’re asking a complex question that has a complex answer. Evolution doesn’t design anything. It’s messy, and a population changes to make it compete ever so slightly better than another population. For land animals, it’s “easier” for the trachea and esophagus to be in the same place. It takes less energy, and is conserved basically because the competetive advantage of having it in different places would take too much energy. For whales, as @ETpro pointed out, the competitive advantage was obvious to put them in separate places.

But this thread isn’t about creation/evolution—a debate we’ve had many times before. It’s about Tyson.

Tyson is a hero of mine because he is one of the best science communicators to come along in a generation. He also takes the time to answer questions, and to help young aspiring students. His answer on UFOs (which I can’t link to from work) is hilarious and an example of why I would have his children if I could.

But this overproduced almost religious Cosmos trailer was a bit over the top. I know what Fox was trying to do; they were trying to inspire a sense of awe. It just was that Tyson was almost a God figure in it, and that bugged me.

That’s exactly what bugged me about it too, alluding to the OZwiz tech shaman. It seemed rather absorbed. Alas, I cannot blame Tyson for that, as much as McFarlan.

I will reconsider Tyson. Your comments about him got me to thinking of Terrence McKenna. I lost respect for that guy because of comments that I found preposterously self interested, similar to my introduction to Tyson. I was really offended by him, and it put me off for a long time. As it turns out, McKenna has become one my most favorite philosophical figures. And now I understand better the context in which his comments were made.

So too may go my reboot of Tyson. The trailer virtually reinforced my preconceived notions about Tyson. But I must realize that is how someone else has packaged him, rather than who he really is.

You know I take great issue with anything which confuses the medium with the message. This FOX trailer attempts once again, to make the medium into the message. I of all people should be able to see through that. So in reality, I’m more disappointed with FOX than I am with Tyson.

I will indeed reconsider him in a new light portrayed by you, a respected friend.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I LOVE McKenna, very rarely do I come across people who have even heard of him. One of my favorite quotes from him….

“We have to create culture, don’t watch TV, don’t read magazines, don’t even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you’re worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or somebody else, then you are disempowered, you’re giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told ‘no’, we’re unimportant, we’re peripheral. ‘Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.’ And then you’re a player, you don’t want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies When I get home, I’ll find that youtube link. It’s hilarious. Or if I can find it on my phone before that I’ll email it to you.

Yes @uberbatman, McKenna is bomb. Surely you’ve dialed him up on the Psychedelic Salon or Deoxy.

”...reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured…”

Exactly my problem with the FOX trailer. It had all the appeal of a dianetics commercial. I trust the show in reality will be more down to earth, and not so “religious” as @Rarebear wisely notes.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Oh of course and I have most of his novels as well.

When I answered above I was on my way out to work and didn’t get a chance to watch the trailer. Now that I have, I have to agree with you guys. It just seems so overly flashy and gimicky. I hope it doesn’t turn out to be that way. Though even if it does I still think I’ll watch a bit just because I so thoroughly enjoy listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I found the link.
http://youtu.be/69qYusZyLrs

Heh… that was pretty good, and funny. I laughed out loud when he said “Photoshop now has a UFO button”. Thanks for that. I’m on the hunt for Tyson now.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I loved the “Steal an ashtray” bit.

I know right? That was serious chuckles.

I’m torn. Carl Sagan was so thoughtful and insightful, with some wonderfully hopeful messages for humanity. Neil Degrasse Tyson is smart and endearing (and, all right, cute, which means I’m totally missing the point of this whole thing.) He’s snarky and quippy, with the knowledge to back it up. But he’s kind of hamming it up here, and the whole thing looks kind of silly.

And Seth McFarlane? Ugh. I fucking can’t stand Family Guy and I basically want to dickpunch him every time he’s onscreen. If this whole thing is full of Seth McFarlane humor, I’m going to be like (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

So that is my deep and insightful analysis of the Cosmos.

@Haleth I don’t know what it’s going to be. When we watch a trailer, we have to recognize that it’s purpose is to lure away audience from such noteworthy entertainment as Real Housewives of Maimi, the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens, Swamp People and Dancing with the Stars.

And while Seth MacFarlane may indeed have a warped sense of humor, it’s sharp as a razor and aimed at slicking away what wrong with American “culture.” He is also a true student of science. If he brings his skills on entertaining (not just being a cultural satirist) to bear on explaining the cosmos, we may be in for a treat.

@ETpro Re: Seth McFarlane, I don’t really know anything about his science credentials. The fact that he’s involved in this says good things, though. But his “humor,” I’ve always thought it was really unfunny and obvious, and mostly relies on cheap shock value. Watching his shows/ movies/ stand up is sort of like hanging around a really annoying frat guy who thinks he’s all that. We’ll have to agree to disagree, because I just can’t stand that dude.

:)

@Haleth We’ll soon see.

I watched the original Cosmos and loved it.

I’m delighted that the new Cosmos is showing on Fox.

Perhaps the ranting that Fox has no use for scientific fact will wane.

Well, just a little.

@SecondHandStoke Well know that when they treat climate science evenhandedly.

@ETpro

There’s no doubt in my mind that the climate is changing, it’s one of the things it does.

It’s my personal conviction however that Mankind’s impact is far too often exaggerated.

@SecondHandStoke Here are the facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans are adding 29 billion tons of CO2 annually when it has a 37 year atmospheric half-life. Is there a part of that equation you dispute?

@ETpro

I said it was exagerrated, not non existent.

The Climate Change message reminds me of fundie Christianity.

“Change your ways or else.”

@SecondHandStoke Here are the facts. The fossil fuel industry globally amounts to almost 40 trillion dollars per year. If you recall how hard Big Tobacco fought to deny the facts for years, to bribe doctors and research institutes into lying so the public could remain deluded about the dangers of smoking and keep buying their deadly product; then you can see the sort of game plan Big Coal and Big Oil are using today. The difference is they have far, far more money available to crank out junk science and run advertising; and their product when used as they specify doesn’t just kill the user, it’s putting us all at risk of mass global extinctions of numerous plant and animal species and sea level rise that will flood coastal areas where the bulk of the Earth’s population currently lives.

@SecondHandStoke Add to that list of facts this one. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached a new all time high this year.

@ETpro

I didn’t pay attention to the fact that you are the OP here.

So I’ll engage, some:

My posts regarding so called Climate Change were based on personal observation and healthy skepticism.

I’m not going to suggest that your seemingly bookmarked litany of “facts” isn’t without some accuracies, but I don’t feel like being your most recent reason to step up to the pulpit and continue to derail the original question.

I think the original question is pretty quiescent. If you care to debate climate change and not derail any further discussion of the return of Cosmos, there is this thread where I’m the OP and that’s the topic.