S01.E04: A Sky Full Of Ghosts

[Tara Ariano]

Astronomer William Herschel's observations of light's impact on time and gravity; a journey to the event horizon of a black hole.

[Snarklepuss]

I wish Neil wouldn't take pot shots at creationists in every episode.  I think it's starting to look like he's out to get them, which he may well be, but should that be a part of this show?  Just state the facts, that the stars we can see go back billions of years, not show how you're right and someone else's ideas are wrong.  Is that too much to expect from a series that's supposed to be about learning, not politics?  Why make it adversarial?  He didn't even say why he brought up the 6500 years in the first place.  If I didn't already know who that was aimed at, I wouldn't know WTF he was talking about. 

And the business about what goes on near a black hole, a lot of that is just speculation, but he didn't always remember to identify it that way.  I wouldn't know fact from theory based on how it's put across on this show.  Whether Neil likes it or not, evolution itself is still a theory at this point, but you'd never know that from the way he has presented it.  I believe there's a great deal of evidence for evolution, but I don't like the way he's presenting things.  I think he is being too arrogant.

[Dagny]

I don't mind NDT calling a light year a light year. I do like thinking of stars as ghosts. It gives one perspective of the amount of time that light had to travel to get to us and how far away everything is. Gravity is a theory that tends to get proven to me everyday.

Doublepost

Edited March 31, 2014 by Dagny

[millahnna]

Theory as a scientific term means something different than theory as a literary term. I think the pot shots are hilarious, though I find the fact that they're even warranted to be sad.

[spottedreptile]

I wish Neil wouldn't take pot shots at creationists in every episode.  I think it's starting to look like he's out to get them, which he may well be, but should that be a part of this show?  Just state the facts, that the stars we can see go back billions of years, not show how you're right and someone else's ideas are wrong.  Is that too much to expect from a series that's supposed to be about learning, not politics?  Why make it adversarial?  He didn't even say why he brought up the 6500 years in the first place.  If I didn't already know who that was aimed at, I wouldn't know WTF he was talking about. 

I agree. He's made his point. No need to keep banging away. It's become personal.

[samuel]

I think the pot shots are kind of funny too, and I do think they can be warranted, but I agree with Snarklepuss that I think they were unnecessary in this episode. NDT did specify that "some say" the earth is 6500 years old, but bringing it up at all felt out of place in this context. Though I don't think him mentioning it was related to any political agenda; he was stating facts relevant to viewers. A surprisingly large number of Americans (the primary broadcasting audience) do think the earth is 6500 years old, and those people are in fact wrong.

I also remember him using similar language about black holes: "some say there may be universes inside them" (paraphrasing), which I think makes it clear enough he's talking about speculation. And of course the speculation itself has reason behind it; the producers probably chose either the most popular hypothesis about black holes or the one that makes the best television. I'm OK with both.

It could be a little more scientific, but hey, the whole show could be a little more scientific. They haven't mentioned quantum mechanics at all, for example, a central concept to pretty much everything the show has discussed so far. But the show aims to educate and entertain the average Sunday night viewer, which I think is great as long as they don't screw anything up. I don't think Cosmos has screwed anything up so far—I'm enjoying it very much.

Edited April 1, 2014 by samuel

[Snarklepuss]

I think the pot shots are kind of funny too, and I do think they can be warranted, but I agree with Snarklepuss that I think they were unnecessary in this episode. NDT did specify that "some say" the earth is 6500 years old, but bringing it up at all felt out of place in this context. Though I don't think him mentioning it was related to any political agenda; he was stating facts relevant to viewers. A surprisingly large number of Americans (the primary broadcasting audience) do think the earth is 6500 years old, and those people are in fact wrong.

I found an interesting article  on this subject and I think I agree with the author that the actual number of "young earth creationists" (as opposed to older earth creationists, I guess) is actually smaller than originally thought for any number of reasons including the way the poll questions were worded.  The author thinks the actual percentage of Americans who think the earth is around 6500 years old is more like 18%.  That's a sizable number but nowhere near the 40% some polls had indicated.  I think there are a lot of creationists who accept enough about evolution to also accept that the earth is much older than 6500 years yet still believe that man was created fully formed as he is today.  The article can be found here:  http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164

I don't know, I guess I just think he's poking the bear with these very directed comments, and what good is that going to do?  Perhaps bringing up this point might reach some young kid out there watching the show against the wishes of his creationist parents, but couldn't he have accomplished that even if he left out that sentence about "some people" and their belief about the age of the cosmos?   I think leaving that sentence in there will turn more people off than it will convince of anything.  Why would the show want to foster more alienation?

[Padma]

Two surprises about this show are (1) how much I look forward to it and (2) how nice it is that my family can agree on something series-wise to watch together.

I really liked the reminder about the world not being 6500 years old. The part I liked best was where he drew the small circle around the earth to show the area of space that would be visible to us if we could only see light that was 6500 years old. That's not saying, "Your religion is wrong" to me, it's just saying, "This is how nature works." If people want to believe the earth is 6500 years old, they still can, but at least maybe they'll realize that their belief doesn't make any logical sense, unless they're willing to say we're wrong about light.

I think that's just "good science education"--"You understand A now...does B still make sense?" 

I was surprised Patrick Stewart was doing the voice of Wm Herschel, but my son tells me that he's a huge Seth McFarland fan. Who knew?

[Constantinople]

I think the pot shots are kind of funny too, and I do think they can be warranted, but I agree with Snarklepuss that I think they were unnecessary in this episode. NDT did specify that "some say" the earth is 6500 years old, but bringing it up at all felt out of place in this context. Though I don't think him mentioning it was related to any political agenda; he was stating facts relevant to viewers. A surprisingly large number of Americans (the primary broadcasting audience) do think the earth is 6500 years old, and those people are in fact wrong.

I also remember him using similar language about black holes: "some say there may be universes inside them" (paraphrasing), which I think makes it clear enough he's talking about speculation. And of course the speculation itself has reason behind it; the producers probably chose either the most popular hypothesis about black holes or the one that makes the best television. I'm OK with both.

It could be a little more scientific, but hey, the whole show could be a little more scientific. They haven't mentioned quantum mechanics at all, for example, a central concept to pretty much everything the show has discussed so far. But the show aims to educate and entertain the average Sunday night viewer, which I think is great as long as they don't screw anything up. I don't think Cosmos has screwed anything up so far—I'm enjoying it very much.

Tyson, the writers and producers should have kept in mind that they're producing this series for network TV which means, unlike Sagan, they don't have the entire 60 minutes available to them because some time must be allocated for commercials.  He doesn't have time for "Some say the earth is 6500 years old".  Instead, why not explain how estimates of the Earth's age have changed over time and how people calculated those estimates instead of just saying the Earth is X years old.

It's even worse when Tyson then turns around and uses "some say" in the context of scientific conjecture.  It makes it easy to dismiss Tyson.  Some some A, some say B, who are you to say A is wrong and B is right?

But the fundamental problem with Cosmos is that Tyson isn't presenting scientific ideas, but an alternative system of magic since he never discusses the how or why, just the what.  It doesn't help that Tyson himself uses the work magic in the episode (just as he used prophecy in the previous episode).

At least the cartoons didn't say put up or shut up this time.

And it was extremely irresponsible of the motorcycle rider to take her helmet off.

[Snarklepuss]

But the fundamental problem with Cosmos is that Tyson isn't presenting scientific ideas, but an alternative system of magic since he never discusses the how or why, just the what.  It doesn't help that Tyson himself uses the work magic in the episode (just as he used prophecy in the previous episode).

You put into words something else that was bothering me.  I think that's a lame attempt by the show to "appeal" to religious types whom they are showing that there is an alternative "magic" they can believe in that is much cooler and rooted in "facts" than their God (assuming that they don't care to hear about those facts).  It just comes across as dumbed down and stupid if you ask me.  He's not going to convince any fundies with this approach, just create more division, IMO.  Plus it can look like a patronizing angle even to some religious people who accept evolution.

 I really liked the reminder about the world not being 6500 years old. The part I liked best was where he drew the small circle around the earth to show the area of space that would be visible to us if we could only see light that was 6500 years old. That's not saying, "Your religion is wrong" to me, it's just saying, "This is how nature works." If people want to believe the earth is 6500 years old, they still can, but at least maybe they'll realize that their belief doesn't make any logical sense, unless they're willing to say we're wrong about light.

I think a lot of fundamentalists would see it that way - that it's telling them their belief is wrong and science is right.  And I can't see how the show is not intending to do that when it singles out their very particular belief to discredit.  There are many other ways to present the age of the cosmos (tell people how it works) without bringing in what "some people" believe.  And I don't think he's showing this belief to be inherently illogical, just not consistent with the facts he presents.  As far as I know  he's not coming primarily from a logical angle but a factual, scientific angle.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Snarklepuss

[Padma]

.  As far as I know  he's not coming primarily from a logical angle but a factual, scientific angle.

 

I thought the logical part was in pointing out the speed light travels and that many of the stars we all can see are of the light that left them hundreds of thousands...millions...of years ago. To me, that says the universe can't have been created 6500 years ago because we can see for ourselves parts of the universe that are much, much older than that.  If you accept the science of the speed of light and even just apply that to the observable sky, logic says that the universe wasn't created 6500 years (or 10,000 years) ago.

[Snarklepuss]

I thought the logical part was in pointing out the speed light travels and that many of the stars we all can see are of the light that left them hundreds of thousands...millions...of years ago. To me, that says the universe can't have been created 6500 years ago because we can see for ourselves parts of the universe that are much, much older than that.  If you accept the science of the speed of light and even just apply that to the observable sky, logic says that the universe wasn't created 6500 years (or 10,000 years) ago.

Ah, I see, I get where you're coming from.  Only if he's trying to appeal to their logic I'm afraid that audience is sorely lacking in it!

[spottedreptile]

Ah, I see, I get where you're coming from.  Only if he's trying to appeal to their logic I'm afraid that audience is sorely lacking in it!

Logic has no place in the mind of any fanatic, no matter the cause.

[ninahdevi]

Does anyone know more about John Michell? Or any resources on him outside of Wikipedia. I googled the phrase " of black complexion" to see what it's usage was back in the 18th century and it seems to be exactly how it sounds to describe people of African descent. Having just finished the book "the Black Count" i'm really interested in people who found positions of prominence in Europe in this time who were of non-European background. There seems to be very little information online about John Michell.

[Dagny]

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/cs_michell.html

This is what I found through the Google.

[Joystickenvy]

I was surprised Patrick Stewart was doing the voice of Wm Herschel, but my son tells me that he's a huge Seth McFarland fan. Who knew?

I believe Patrick Stewart also does the voice for Stan's boss on American Dad, so not surprised he would turn up on Cosmos.

------------------------------

Re: speculation & Cosmos vs creationists

Anyone who has watched a McFarlane show knows he likes to tweak the nose of creationists & I get the impression Neil does as well. Probably not the most productive approach, but I kind of get the temptation. The fact that they are whining because a show about science isn't letting them present their religion based view of the universe probably doesn't help.

I thought they made it plenty clear that the black hole stuff was speculation. I don't need them to keep repeating it.

There isn't really time, or probably enough mass interest, to get into the nitty gritty details of every topic they cover. I look at it as more of a hey, here's some cool, interesting stuff scientist have studied sort of show, not a weekly lecture on how stuff works. I expect people with a deeper interest will do their own research on specific topics of interest.

For myself, I could do with less of the ship of the imagination stuff and found the whole black hole sequence dull, but overall I find the show entertaining and something that inspires me to learn more about the universe. It reminds me of why I wanted to be a scientist when I was a kid, before the idea of finding a good paying, practical job took hold.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Joystickenvy

[samuel]

Totally agree about the ship of the imagination stuff. I know that it was in the original, but I just don't get it. I think it's supposed to be a cute explanation of how they are showing us images of deep space on screen, but I don't see how or why that needs to be explained. The ship segments aren't even fun; they're boring. I always want to see more of basically everything except the ship!

I'd prefer they just do a small segment with it in the beginning and maybe the end of each ep (or not at all). It's a small gripe though.

Edited April 3, 2014 by samuel

[Kierstyn]

I think the pot shots are kind of funny too, and I do think they can be warranted, but I agree with Snarklepuss that I think they were unnecessary in this episode. NDT did specify that "some say" the earth is 6500 years old, but bringing it up at all felt out of place in this context. Though I don't think him mentioning it was related to any political agenda; he was stating facts relevant to viewers. A surprisingly large number of Americans (the primary broadcasting audience) do think the earth is 6500 years old, and those people are in fact wrong.

I also remember him using similar language about black holes: "some say there may be universes inside them" (paraphrasing), which I think makes it clear enough he's talking about speculation. And of course the speculation itself has reason behind it; the producers probably chose either the most popular hypothesis about black holes or the one that makes the best television. I'm OK with both.

It could be a little more scientific, but hey, the whole show could be a little more scientific. They haven't mentioned quantum mechanics at all, for example, a central concept to pretty much everything the show has discussed so far. But the show aims to educate and entertain the average Sunday night viewer, which I think is great as long as they don't screw anything up. I don't think Cosmos has screwed anything up so far—I'm enjoying it very much.

If you think that McFarlane, Druyan and deGrasse Tyson are only aiming it at the average Sunday night viewer, or an American audience, then you could be missing the bigger point of the series.  I've heard all three of them give interviews on their version of Cosmos - their goal is to reach the viewing audience in the 171 countries where it is airing.  Druyan and deGrasse Tyson also talked about how they wanted to make the show approachable and fun for younger viewers, to interest them in the STEM fields.  When you look at it from that perspective, a lot of their choices make more sense. 

And I don't see their comments on evolution as 'pot shots' against creationists.  They are trying to influence the minds of kids and young adults who may spend years in religious education, being taught things that have no basis in scientific reality.  If they spend one to five minutes, once a week for 13 weeks contradicting that... I don't think that is hammering an issue, myself.

 

[millahnna]

I guess, when comparing to the original series, I can see what some of you mean by the show seeming somewhat dumbed down but I think it might actually be necessary.  Science and math scores are down, way down, since Sagan did the original (or at leas they were the last time I checked on those sorts of stats).  To some of us, the show is going to seem dumbed down because we have an active interest in such topics and at least understand the basics from a laymen's perspective, if not a more professional one (not I, just a reasonably well read layman).  But sadly, to a lot of people, a lot of this is really new information: and I mean outside of the creationist concept that we've been discussing.  I mean sure some of the history of the scientists in the cartoons is new to me (or long forgotten by me, whichever) and I always have to look up the details and specifics if I find myself in a conversation about astronomy, evolution, geology, etc.  But most of the basic scientific concepts are things I at least have a passing familiarity with.  If the statistics are anything to go by, this is not the case for large numbers of the population, at least here in the States.  The presentation is, in some ways, more simplified because it has to be. 20-30 years of really shitty education policies will do that to a society. 

[Rhetorica]

I go, "Ahhh..." after episode just as I did 30 years ago. Sagan is the reason I have a minor in astronomy. I was awe inspired. This series has the same objectives as the first: to bring science to the masses, to encourage interest in science, and present science as cool. If those objectives ate met, I think they've done a fine job. I wonder if I saw the original now if it would live up to my memories. I look forward to reading your comments after each episode.

[Cerulean]

For the 6500 years call out, I also found it humorous, but suspect the reason he's pointing it out is to get people engaged in the discussion of science education. For one thing, he's calling out an young-earth belief, then immediately providing a reason why it can't be as possible ammunition if you ever find yourself in an argument. Additionally, when you see something that specifically disprovable, you probably want your children educated with real facts rather than agreeing with others who want creationism taught.

Personally, I was disappointed that he didn't discuss expansion at all when taking about the age of the visible universe. I would have gladly given up the wormhole speculation in exchange for the chance to hear NdGT explain it to a layman.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Cerulean

[Joystickenvy]

I agree about the worm hole speculation, but I suspect we can blame sci fi tv & movies for that bit. I think it was mostly included because it's a concept much beloved in popular entertainment. Hopefully, the show will get a better feel for what works and what doesn't and settle into itself as it goes along.

[millahnna]

The wormhole stuff seemed like clear speculation due to redundant use of "may" and "might". I don't think he needed to make it any more clear that it was a hypothesis and not a theory.

[QuantumMechanic]

I found it very frustrating to have Tyson say something like "...and things look funny near the speed of light".  And then...nothing!  Maybe they don't need to spend the whole 4:30 that was spent on the relativistic Vespa in the original show, but would it have killed them to use a little of their SFX to show the audience some of those funny things.  (And I'll point out that in that 4:30 in the original show they touched on red and blue shifts, Lorentz contraction, the relativistic aberration of light, time dilation, and the twin paradox -- though admittedly very few of them by name.)

I understand the thrust of the show to be sciency and "science is cool".  But it would be nice to have a little more actual science in it.  (I will say Ep. 5 did a better job in that respect.)