but I just don't.
When I first heard about "Cosmos" and saw the ads for it, I was excited. A science show! A well funded science show on over-the-air tv! I'm all for science outreach, and making it look as cool as it really is. I got a little nervous when I read that it was being produced by Seth MacFarlane, because I have yet to enjoy any of his comedies, but I thought it would probably still be good. Money and sponsorship has to come from somewhere.
I watched the first episode with Dear Husband. The animations were stunning. The episode as a whole was...underwhelming. DH, who while not a scientist is highly logical/mathematical and a great appreciator of good CGI, felt the show was boring, slow, and kinda wandering. He has not watched another since, so I have been watching them on my own as I have time.
Now, I'm not old enough to have seen the original "Cosmos", so I'm judging the new "Cosmos" on its own merit, so anything that's an homage to the original, unless obvious or called out as such by others, is lost on me, as it will be for anyone under, say, 30.
My feelings about "Cosmos" haven't really changed since that first episode, which is disappointing because I want to love it. It's slow. It could be doing SO much more with the time and obvious animating talents at its disposal. It's historical segments* are full of half-truths, and give me the impression of an 8th-grade history paper. It's anti-religion bent is just tired. I could accept the latter if the former were honest. I could accept the former if the latter were absent, toned down or at least not directly tied to the former. As it is, I just sit there waiting through the historical sections for inaccuracies, anachronisms and the projection of 21st century thought patterns onto previous generations. Tyson made some not-as-subtle-as-he-thinks snide remark about religion and I just want to tell him to get on with it already. I'd have rather had a 5 minute atheist chit-chat in the first episode and just on with the science already.
For the record, I actually liked some of the taking-down Young Earth Creation (YEC) segments, particularly the one in "A Sky Full of Ghosts". I doubt it converted as many as Tyson thinks it should, but at least it's footing is firm--light travels this fast, ergo we shouldn't be able to see almost anything in the sky if the universe is only 6000 years old. We see lots of stars and galaxies, ergo the universe is much older.
Though Tyson gets a bit hand-wavy when it comes to the frontiers of the knowledge of science (multiverse, how exactly we got from chemical soup to single celled organisms), the science content is solid, if spread a little thin. I really think they could have fit more science content in, if they cut down the semi-history, Tyson spoke at a normal pace and they grouped topics a little more strategically.
Actually, Tyson as narrator poses a bit of a stumbling block for me to like this show. I know he's an astronomer rockstar, that he is a beloved science communicator, etc. But his tone and cadence remind me of the one that my mom uses in teaching 2s and 3s Sunday School, with a dash of pseudo-drama. I don't mind when people talk with their hands, but his hand movements feel fake, an affect someone told him was an effective presentation technique. Not that this is a great reason to dislike "Cosmos" but it does make it a bit of a chore, a kind of science devotional for me to watch the show. It's that class on the awesome topic taught by a teacher you can't stand.
Overall, I'm not sure that this incarnation of "Cosmos" will be as effective as the original. Of course, maybe I'm the wrong audience, but I have yet to find someone who didn't love the original that is taken with the new one. And preaching to the choir is not a successful evangelism, pardon me, communication method.
*A separate problem for me is the horrific accents for some of the animated segments. Some are fine, but some are just terrible.
Showing posts with label Cosmos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cosmos. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Hellfire Preachers and Snarky Scientists
Every science blogger, tweeter (Twitterer?), and opinionator has been talking about the "Cosmos" reboot in the past couple of weeks. I've withheld comment because I was trying to sort through my feelings on it.
On the one hand, it is obviously well done. Tyson is a good science communicator and the special effects are marvelous.
I have two problems: the history sections, and the science community's gloating.
Dr. Tyson is no idiot. The science, as far as I can tell, is rock solid. Their history, where it isn't outright wrong, is highly deceptive. Tyson tries to soften it with small disclaimers, but a soft spoken phrase is hardly enough to dispel Seth MacFarlane's potent animation, which weirdly makes me think of Sunday School felt characters.
If it were just a conversation with scientists, I'd let it slide. But "Cosmos" is being set forth, and was designed as judging by the scripting, as a kind of science evangelism tool. Which I applaud. But it seriously undermines the credibility of the science message when the creators can't seem to be trusted to confer with a historian when writing the history of science. By distorting the most easily checked part of their program, it makes it far too easy for anyone already skeptical of its message to dismiss the rest, even if the rest is actually solid. It's a lot easier to check up on history than to check up on the science. If they couldn't do that right, they should have left it out, whether or not it was in Sagan's original.
The other thing is really getting my goat is the crowing going on in the public face of science, Twitter and blogs. A hashtag I've seen a little too much of is #CreationScience and it's ilk.
I have a foot in both worlds. I am a faithful Christian who absolutely believes every word in the Apostle's Creed. I take seriously the Great Commision, even if I am particularly terrible at it. I am also a scientist. I think the universe began with the Big Bang, that life evolved on earth (and possibly elsewhere), that dinosaurs walked the earth long before humans and that geologists are perfectly right in the age estimates of the earth. Whenever I can, I try to correct people's misconceptions and make the case for SCIENCE.
So, dear fellow scientists, I say this with love as a sister in Science--who do you think you are going to win over by mockery?
You know that street corner preacher who yells at people who pass by that they are going to burn in Hell, with colorful descriptions of specific tortures? You know how annoying it is to run across these people? Has a single human being not already inclined to the preacher's theology ever repented and converted because they were yelled at?
Fellow scientists, you are that preacher. Every time you make a snarky comment about "Creationists" or "fundamentalists", you are just passing around a mean joke with your own clic. You want to know why 'they' are distrustful of science? Because this is what they see when they go on your twitter page, your blog, your facebook. They see sarcasm and mockery.
I am a old-earth-creationist/theist evolutionist who technically agrees with you and I feel hurt when I read those comments. Should I have a thicker skin? Sure. But making comments like that cuts deep, especially when coming from what I feel is 'my' community.
Do you think you are going to win over anyone by doing this? People on the fence are not likely to tilt to your side because you insulted them, and people who distrust you are going to run.
No one has changed their mind because they were insulted into it. Very rarely on anything that matters may they be discussed into it.
People are loved into change.
This is not likely to be a popular sentiment among you, my dispassionate brethren. You pride yourselves on logic and reason. But you are also deeply, deeply passionate about your research, your area of expertise, your hobbies. You are wonderful, caring people in real life. I rarely, in talking with you, am faced with the same vitriol that I find from you online.
Social media is a powerful tool. We could be using "Cosmos" to be reaching people who will never again set foot inside a science classroom. But if what they see coming from scientists is hatred, why would they want to change their views? Why would they want to associate themselves with you?
Don't be the annoying hellfire street corner preachers of science
On the one hand, it is obviously well done. Tyson is a good science communicator and the special effects are marvelous.
I have two problems: the history sections, and the science community's gloating.
Dr. Tyson is no idiot. The science, as far as I can tell, is rock solid. Their history, where it isn't outright wrong, is highly deceptive. Tyson tries to soften it with small disclaimers, but a soft spoken phrase is hardly enough to dispel Seth MacFarlane's potent animation, which weirdly makes me think of Sunday School felt characters.
If it were just a conversation with scientists, I'd let it slide. But "Cosmos" is being set forth, and was designed as judging by the scripting, as a kind of science evangelism tool. Which I applaud. But it seriously undermines the credibility of the science message when the creators can't seem to be trusted to confer with a historian when writing the history of science. By distorting the most easily checked part of their program, it makes it far too easy for anyone already skeptical of its message to dismiss the rest, even if the rest is actually solid. It's a lot easier to check up on history than to check up on the science. If they couldn't do that right, they should have left it out, whether or not it was in Sagan's original.
The other thing is really getting my goat is the crowing going on in the public face of science, Twitter and blogs. A hashtag I've seen a little too much of is #CreationScience and it's ilk.
I have a foot in both worlds. I am a faithful Christian who absolutely believes every word in the Apostle's Creed. I take seriously the Great Commision, even if I am particularly terrible at it. I am also a scientist. I think the universe began with the Big Bang, that life evolved on earth (and possibly elsewhere), that dinosaurs walked the earth long before humans and that geologists are perfectly right in the age estimates of the earth. Whenever I can, I try to correct people's misconceptions and make the case for SCIENCE.
So, dear fellow scientists, I say this with love as a sister in Science--who do you think you are going to win over by mockery?
You know that street corner preacher who yells at people who pass by that they are going to burn in Hell, with colorful descriptions of specific tortures? You know how annoying it is to run across these people? Has a single human being not already inclined to the preacher's theology ever repented and converted because they were yelled at?
Fellow scientists, you are that preacher. Every time you make a snarky comment about "Creationists" or "fundamentalists", you are just passing around a mean joke with your own clic. You want to know why 'they' are distrustful of science? Because this is what they see when they go on your twitter page, your blog, your facebook. They see sarcasm and mockery.
I am a old-earth-creationist/theist evolutionist who technically agrees with you and I feel hurt when I read those comments. Should I have a thicker skin? Sure. But making comments like that cuts deep, especially when coming from what I feel is 'my' community.
Do you think you are going to win over anyone by doing this? People on the fence are not likely to tilt to your side because you insulted them, and people who distrust you are going to run.
No one has changed their mind because they were insulted into it. Very rarely on anything that matters may they be discussed into it.
People are loved into change.
This is not likely to be a popular sentiment among you, my dispassionate brethren. You pride yourselves on logic and reason. But you are also deeply, deeply passionate about your research, your area of expertise, your hobbies. You are wonderful, caring people in real life. I rarely, in talking with you, am faced with the same vitriol that I find from you online.
Social media is a powerful tool. We could be using "Cosmos" to be reaching people who will never again set foot inside a science classroom. But if what they see coming from scientists is hatred, why would they want to change their views? Why would they want to associate themselves with you?
Don't be the annoying hellfire street corner preachers of science
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)