Like Cosmos, I feel I’ve been away too long… Let’s try to stick around a bit more.
I just watched the first episode of Cosmos. I’m going to try to give my thoughts on this series each week.
In today’s climate where religion is feeling the heat from Science more than ever as the Internet educates more people each day. It was hard to look at today’s show as anything but a slap at religion and the anti-science crowd.
At the start, I found the beginning of the show too quick. The show really assumes that we know about the first show from many years ago. That we know about this spaceship that Neil zips around in. The details of what the show was are touched but ever so briefly. Maybe I give the age of the Internet too little credit, but I would have liked to have seen a bit more.
However, once you dive in and get used to the water, Cosmos takes off.
Neil (our host), gives you the cosmic perspective, as he likes to do, and shows our place in the universe and beyond. Once we get there, he hits religion in the face with the story of Giordano Bruno. Bruno was a monk who was burnt at the stake for a number of religious reason which partly included some ideas the universe and our part in it that happened to be true. Cosmos falls here a bit, because it focuses on Bruno being killed for Science and that was only part of the equation.
However, I think in this day and age the point is a fair one. We live in an age where Science and new ideas are openly challenged by religion. The debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham shows that:
We know the stories of the Bible can not be taken at face value and yet religion can not change. It dare not or the house of cards will fall. People like Ken Ham are the thought police.
Cosmos then turns around and looks at our place again in cosmic time. The effects are great and again makes you understand how small you are.
Overall I liked the first show even with the few stumbles. I would liked to have seen more details about the science, but I’m sure that is saved for other shows. It’s a solid start.
I like this video, not just because of the message, but because I can see my wife giving me ‘the eye’ just like what happened to the person in the vid.
I thought this was funny, so I’ll post it. 🙂
Yes, I owe some posts to this blog. Summer is getting in the way…
I’m finishing up a game review, but here’s a link to enjoy.
The ‘Made Easy‘ Series is really an excellent series. This is related to a small degree. It talks more to the dangers of Religion and Climate Change.
OK, life is letting me get back to my blog. To start, why don’t you win some money…
First this great post: Scientists hate the GOP for a reason by Amanda Marcotte which rips a post in Nature: Science must be seen to bridge the political divide by Daniel Sarewitz
First the opening paragraph from Nature:
To prevent science from continuing its worrying slide towards politicization, here’s a New Year’s resolution for scientists, especially in the United States: gain the confidence of people and politicians across the political spectrum by demonstrating that science is bipartisan.
I’ll leave you to read the whole article, but in short. It says that the Science should support the GOP more and in return Daniel thinks that the GOP will look at Science as bipartisan and will support it more.
What a load of shit!
Go get him Amanda:
He (Daniel) argues that the perceived liberal bent of the social scientists has caused Republicans to be wary of that field and to defund it, and warns that if scientists in other fields—he names public health and environmental science—don’t stop supporting Democrats so openly, Republicans will come after them, too. But the cause-and-effect relationship is reversed. Republicans started it when, as early as the environmentalist movements of the ’70s, they began to morph into the party that defended corporate profits over public health and environmental good. Why would scientists support a party that ignores and refuses to fund important scientific initiatives like efforts to fight climate change, stem cell research, and advances in improving sexual health, like development of the cervical cancer vaccine? Sarewitz blames scientists for the politicization of science, when any fool can see that Republicans attacked first and scientists are just defending themselves.
Let’s be clear. Republicans don’t attack scientists because they want to punish them for supporting Democrats. If all scientists agreed tomorrow to stop donating to parties, expressing political opinions in public, or even voting, Republicans would not gratefully start agreeing with scientific consensus around global warming or embrace public health recommendations to reduce unplanned pregnancy and STDs. They wouldn’t even come around on the now 154-year-old theory of evolution. They oppose these ideas because they come in conflict with Republican ideological concerns.
Well put Amanda. Just wow!
On another note, Colin Powell has been killing the GOP:
I think 2016 is the year of the GOP purge. The GOP will do something silly, like default the country or something and have their ass handed to them again. The Dems will hold both houses.
At this point the GOP will retool hopefully more to the center and be strong in 2018. At least I hope so. It’s better for all of us to have the two parties with a closer divide between them.