Good point, but I would say that when Science stops challenging itself it becomes Agendaskyboltone wrote:Way to much so called "settled" science" for me. All the way through the damn thing they would bend the data to fit the theory. Especially biological and genetic data. It's disappointing. Feynman would DEFINITELY not approve. I can't for the life of me figure out why any scientist would buy into a television series that is so stuck on proving shit that simply isn't proven.
Still, as Darren says, it's 100 times better than anything else on TV so I watch all of it and grouse and grumble when it strays from where the data leads. Science advances by challenging itself. When it stops doing that it becomes entertainment.
Our Future
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
Re: Our Future
- skyboltone
- Posts: 2287
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:02 pm
- Location: Sparks, NV, where nowhere looks like home.
Re: Our Future
Ah yes. Much better word. What ever it is, it ain't science.thejaf wrote:Good point, but I would say that when Science stops challenging itself it becomes Agendaskyboltone wrote:Way to much so called "settled" science" for me. All the way through the damn thing they would bend the data to fit the theory. Especially biological and genetic data. It's disappointing. Feynman would DEFINITELY not approve. I can't for the life of me figure out why any scientist would buy into a television series that is so stuck on proving shit that simply isn't proven.
Still, as Darren says, it's 100 times better than anything else on TV so I watch all of it and grouse and grumble when it strays from where the data leads. Science advances by challenging itself. When it stops doing that it becomes entertainment.
The Last of the World's Great Human Beings
Seek immediate medical attention if you suddenly go either deaf or blind.
If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years time there would be a shortage of sand.
Seek immediate medical attention if you suddenly go either deaf or blind.
If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years time there would be a shortage of sand.
Re: Our Future
I think it's worth noting that this is a program intended for children produced and often voiced by the guy behind Family Guy.
I say this not to criticize the show, but to contextualize the criticism it's receiving. It does have an agenda and it is not science. It is entertainment for the purpose of inspiring children to learn more. It's a noble agenda. Education, like what's being said about science, isn't about acquiring and stockpiling facts (no matter what the current political climate of education claims), it's about learning to question, continuously. More available data leads to better questions. Sure, there may be some wonderful answers to those questions along the way--but the next question is almost always more important than the last answer.
Hell, if a drummer (don henley) could get a line "there are no facts, just data to be manipulated" into a song, I have to think *anyone* can understand this.
I say this not to criticize the show, but to contextualize the criticism it's receiving. It does have an agenda and it is not science. It is entertainment for the purpose of inspiring children to learn more. It's a noble agenda. Education, like what's being said about science, isn't about acquiring and stockpiling facts (no matter what the current political climate of education claims), it's about learning to question, continuously. More available data leads to better questions. Sure, there may be some wonderful answers to those questions along the way--but the next question is almost always more important than the last answer.
Hell, if a drummer (don henley) could get a line "there are no facts, just data to be manipulated" into a song, I have to think *anyone* can understand this.
Re: Our Future
Kind of worse then. Science is important, children are important. If we make a show about science, but don't show how science actually works, and present ideas that aren't actually true as if they were facts, what is that?matt h wrote:I think it's worth noting that this is a program intended for children.
Re: Our Future
AN anti Christian agenda.Firestorm wrote:Kind of worse then. Science is important, children are important. If we make a show about science, but don't show how science actually works, and present ideas that aren't actually true as if they were facts, what is that?matt h wrote:I think it's worth noting that this is a program intended for children.
The future looks bleak.At least this home is only temporary
Re: Our Future
We CAN fix it so it's not quite so bleak for our children's children.
Re: Our Future
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess most of you aren't educators. From the episodes of this show I've seen, I'd have to say it's gross mischaracterization to say this show "is science!" It's a show dealing with the history of science, the biographies of scientists, some adorable and/or nearly unbelievable discoveries (the tardigrade?!), and to relate concepts which have been explored through scientific inquiry to the daily lives of the audience.
"but don't show how science actually works"-- sorry, I haven't seen this being the case. I've seen stories presented of scientists studying a phenomenon and questioning it, making observations, attempting to explain its behavior, hypothesizing a theory to explain it such that it is predictable, and taking more measurements to support that theory before releasing it to the scientific community and the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong-- but THAT is science... no? People once thought angry gods volcanic eruptions. Later, understanding of plate tectonics, fluid dynamics replaced Vulcan with volcanology (sometimes even spelled 'vulcanology'!)
Do we believe that before theories volcanology, there was an angry god blowing off steam? Nope--the only thing that changed was our understanding.
THAT is science. Our science from latin "scientia" a noun formed from sciens, scientis-- the present active partiple of scio. Scio "I know", scientis "I am knowing". Scientia becomes "the things being known."
Science starts with a question and seeks to find an answer. Religion starts with an answer and backprojects a story to justify its conclusions.
Having NDT speaking about the dangerous fragility of CO2 levels while Boehner attempts to claim CO2 isn't a problem because "we exhale it all the time!"
If you want to start talking about detrimental omissions, "bad science", sinister agenda, and danger to our children and the future of the world, "Cosmos" isn't a productive target.
"but don't show how science actually works"-- sorry, I haven't seen this being the case. I've seen stories presented of scientists studying a phenomenon and questioning it, making observations, attempting to explain its behavior, hypothesizing a theory to explain it such that it is predictable, and taking more measurements to support that theory before releasing it to the scientific community and the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong-- but THAT is science... no? People once thought angry gods volcanic eruptions. Later, understanding of plate tectonics, fluid dynamics replaced Vulcan with volcanology (sometimes even spelled 'vulcanology'!)
Do we believe that before theories volcanology, there was an angry god blowing off steam? Nope--the only thing that changed was our understanding.
THAT is science. Our science from latin "scientia" a noun formed from sciens, scientis-- the present active partiple of scio. Scio "I know", scientis "I am knowing". Scientia becomes "the things being known."
Science starts with a question and seeks to find an answer. Religion starts with an answer and backprojects a story to justify its conclusions.
Having NDT speaking about the dangerous fragility of CO2 levels while Boehner attempts to claim CO2 isn't a problem because "we exhale it all the time!"
If you want to start talking about detrimental omissions, "bad science", sinister agenda, and danger to our children and the future of the world, "Cosmos" isn't a productive target.
Re: Our Future
On the topic of CO2 levels, global warming (or climate change, as it's now called), I see money being the biggest obstacle to true scientific exploration and data interpretation. Seems that those most vocal in both camps (advocates and opponents) are those with the most to gain. Those entities then fund studies with the objective of strengthening their position. Sounds an awful lot like religion to me.
Never heard Al Gore talk about sulfur hexafluoride; guess there's no money to be made by selling credits for it.
Never heard Al Gore talk about sulfur hexafluoride; guess there's no money to be made by selling credits for it.
Re: Our Future
thejaf wrote:On the topic of CO2 levels, global warming (or climate change, as it's now called), I see money being the biggest obstacle to true scientific exploration and data interpretation. Seems that those most vocal in both camps (advocates and opponents) are those with the most to gain. Those entities then fund studies with the objective of strengthening their position. Sounds an awful lot like religion to me.
Never heard Al Gore talk about sulfur hexafluoride; guess there's no money to be made by selling credits for it.
+1
Computer models designed to yield the results the designer (or sponsor) wants to see, is not science. It sometimes is religion; the true-believers think the means justify the ends (just as the leaders of the Inquisition thought). More often, it's just plain corruption (i.e. Al Gore) and/or delusional.
Re: Our Future
I may have been a bit harsh. My complaint with Cosmos and every other "science" show is the tendency to "cut to the chase" too quickly. Scientific inquiry is an arduous process with lots of false steps, disappointments and changes in direction before arriving at defensible theory that winds up being invalidated, about half the time, by the next round of research. Almost nothing in science is ever settled, because every theory is only one experiment away from being wrong. Look at the (continuing) evolution of the Standard Model in physics for an example of just how wrong the smartest guys can be.matt h wrote:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess most of you aren't educators. From the episodes of this show I've seen, I'd have to say it's gross mischaracterization to say this show "is science!" It's a show dealing with the history of science, the biographies of scientists, some adorable and/or nearly unbelievable discoveries (the tardigrade?!), and to relate concepts which have been explored through scientific inquiry to the daily lives of the audience.
"but don't show how science actually works"-- sorry, I haven't seen this being the case. I've seen stories presented of scientists studying a phenomenon and questioning it, making observations, attempting to explain its behavior, hypothesizing a theory to explain it such that it is predictable, and taking more measurements to support that theory before releasing it to the scientific community and the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong-- but THAT is science... no? People once thought angry gods volcanic eruptions. Later, understanding of plate tectonics, fluid dynamics replaced Vulcan with volcanology (sometimes even spelled 'vulcanology'!)
Do we believe that before theories volcanology, there was an angry god blowing off steam? Nope--the only thing that changed was our understanding.
THAT is science. Our science from latin "scientia" a noun formed from sciens, scientis-- the present active partiple of scio. Scio "I know", scientis "I am knowing". Scientia becomes "the things being known."
Science starts with a question and seeks to find an answer. Religion starts with an answer and backprojects a story to justify its conclusions.
Having NDT speaking about the dangerous fragility of CO2 levels while Boehner attempts to claim CO2 isn't a problem because "we exhale it all the time!"
If you want to start talking about detrimental omissions, "bad science", sinister agenda, and danger to our children and the future of the world, "Cosmos" isn't a productive target.
This particular episode bothered me in a different way. It started with a false premise (an Eden-like Venus with lovely oceans) and lept to a false conclusion (just a little too much CO2 in the atmosphere can lead to a runaway greenhouse on Earth) bolstered by false "evidence" (the atmosphere and oceans are heating up at an unprecedented rate).
The latest thinking in planetary circles is that Venus probably never had oceans because surface conditions would not permit them to form. CO2 has a modest heat-trapping characteristic with two principle absorption and emission spikes in the infrared, but it cannot lead to a runaway greenhouse on Earth because we have a carbon cycle and a water cycle. Our climate is one part atmosphere and one thousand parts ocean. CO2 cannot warm the oceans because the wavelengths of the photons it emits are too long to penetrate more than a few centimeters.
And if you look at GISS, HADCRUT and the other temperature datasets for land, sea surface and lower troposphere, you'll find Temps that have been dead flat for thirteen years. Artic ocean Temps peaked between 1920-1940 and have been decreasing ever since. West Antarctica is presently subject to some warming from shifts in ocean currents, but Antarctica as a whole has the largest summer sea ice extent in decades.
I love the idea of solar power and windmills and tidal generators. Make them economically viable and we'll buy them. There's no need to go all Chicken Little.
Re: Our Future
The lesson I walked away with from that episode is that humans impact climate change. Climate change can benefit the world. Climate change can make serious problems for humanity. Humanity needs to actually start paying attention to the various mechanisms (plural) through which humanity directly affects climate change. I don't remember the episode ever stating that CO2 emissions were 100% responsible for the correlation. There was a compelling argument that increased CO2 is also leading to an increase in methane. A catalyst isn't responsible for a reaction, right? What's the difference between CO2 and sulfur hexafluoride? Oh, that's easy-- most people, even the failures of the public education system, have actually heard of one and can understand the relationship between cause and effect.
"Cutting to the chase" is at the core of every single approach to education... starting with "a is for apple." Great Vowel shift? inheritence and appropriation of Phoenician alphabet? abecedarian literature? We certainly don't demand some sort of net-justice for these topics when they're subject to an even more insulting truncation of discussion...
Why? Because those don't make people feel guilty for sustaining a particular lifestyle. The hallmark of civilization isn't civility, it's the shirking of responsibility.
"Cutting to the chase" is at the core of every single approach to education... starting with "a is for apple." Great Vowel shift? inheritence and appropriation of Phoenician alphabet? abecedarian literature? We certainly don't demand some sort of net-justice for these topics when they're subject to an even more insulting truncation of discussion...
Why? Because those don't make people feel guilty for sustaining a particular lifestyle. The hallmark of civilization isn't civility, it's the shirking of responsibility.
Re: Our Future
You can't build a model or spin data to make ice caps melt.