G
gracepoole
Guest
I loved the premiere episode but I’m guessing that some here will be/were disturbed by its depictions of the Catholic Church of the 16th- and 17th-centuries. Anyone have any reactions to share?
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
I watched it. To me it seemed a little long on graphics and somewhat short on substance. It put in a reference to the multiverse theory although there is no particular evidence for it. Just as there was no evidence for Giovanni Bruno’s theories in his time—that whole segment seemed rather gratuitously unrelated to the theme of the show except to point out a lucky guess—the opposite of the scientific method. But I supposed that a popular science show cannot help but take a pot shot at the Catholic Church.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
When the program included a comment that both Luther and Calvin condemned the early astronomical theories, I was hoping for some even-handedness, but inevitably, the Church had to be portrayed - complete with torture tools that I question were even related to the Inquisition - as the bad guy.
C
ccmnxc
Guest
Yup. Seems about par for the course.
W
without
Guest
Bruno was working with metaphysics… not a guess. Same science that Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus and others used before the tools for actual experimentation were available.
I also really liked the presentation of the multiverse theory even if it is also in the realm of metaphysics. It seems more reasonable that rationalizing out how original sin broke the universe for all living and non-living thingsthrough-out creation…
J
JimG
Guest
Metaphysics, as a philosophical study, still has validity. But Aristotelian metaphysics is a lot different than the Ptolemaic system which was based on observation of the sky. The calculations got too complex when based on geocentrism.Bruno was working with metaphysics… not a guess. Same science that Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus and others used before the tools for actual experimentation were available.
I also really liked the presentation of the multiverse theory even if it is also in the realm of metaphysics. It seems more reasonable that rationalizing out how original sin broke the universe for all living and non-living thingsthrough-out creation…
It seems to me that nothing in classical metaphysics could have led Bruno to a conclusion about the structure of the solar system or the universe. And original sin is theology, not philosophy or science; it has nothing to do with cosmology.
I have nothing in particular against the multiverse theory, but it seems at present to be not much more than Bruno’s guess about the stars.
I suppose I shouldn’t be so negative about popular science shows, but I would have gotten more out of a one hour lecture by a cosmologist!
B
Beautiful
Guest
Sagan was diGrasse’s inspiration. I believe Sagan was atheist. I suppose diGrasse had to build on and support the man he looks up to.
The bit about Sagan offering diGrasse a ride and shelter was not appropriate to reflect on in the show.
W
without
Guest
Bruno was basing his thought in part on “On the Nature of Things”… also some Aristotle and Augustine. Basically - if the spiritual (things unseen) is infinite then so would the physical (things seen).
He was near the very top of math and philosophy in his day. Read up on him and decide for yourself how much of his ideas and works (40+ books) were based on his education and study and how much was a “guess”…
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not all that familiar with Carl Sagan, except that he was a well known scientist and popularizer of science. If he was diGrasse’s inspiration, then it was fine to remark on that incident in the show. Isaac Asimov was also a popularizer of science, though he was a writer and not involved in television. He was also an atheist, but I always got a lot more out of Asimov’s writings than I did from Sagan. I guess we were just on different wavelengths. In some respects, it seems science was Sagan’s religion. Secular humanism was Asimov’s religion, but he was good at explaining science.
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the information; you’re right, I need to learn more about him. He sounds pretty interesting.
J
John_Savage
Guest
Bruno was killed for his views on science? I don’t think so. Don’t trust atheists.
C
Catholic1954
Guest
I missed the new show tonight, but Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” was quite anti-Catholic in some parts. It wouldn’t surprise me if we get more of same from this show.
T
tantumquantum
Guest
It was a slightly disappointing first episode. The first part was okay, the middle dragged on, the last part was good.
What I do not get is the Bruno Giordano part. Tyson was cautioning the audience that Giordano was basically a dick, who “unscientifically” had an idea concerning a multi-universe but kept on insisting on it without much proof. In the end Tyson confirms that it was indeed a lucky hunch by him. So why do they feel the need to demonize the Church? Why are they implying that Bruno Giordano was a scientific martyr when in reality at that time he was very unscientific in his methods and did not have much understanding with astronomy. Bruno, a Dominican monk, was deemed a heretic because of his beliefs contrary to the Church. He believed that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world etc… He was burned at the stake because of his heresies and not because of his “science”. Heck even Galileo and Kepler was not sympathetic to Bruno and his writings.
There’s basically a disconnect with what Tyson is saying and the narrative in the animation which demonizes the Church. If Tyson had to do some sort of disclaimer so people would see past the Church bashing and see that the message was that Bruno was a person who exhibited a very good sense of curiosity and open-mindedness to possibilities which is important to science, but used a wrong way of convincing people about it, why use him in the first place when there are other people they can use as more concise examples? It was either just terrible writing or the producers had an agenda about them so they included this part.
What I do not get is the Bruno Giordano part. Tyson was cautioning the audience that Giordano was basically a dick, who “unscientifically” had an idea concerning a multi-universe but kept on insisting on it without much proof. In the end Tyson confirms that it was indeed a lucky hunch by him. So why do they feel the need to demonize the Church? Why are they implying that Bruno Giordano was a scientific martyr when in reality at that time he was very unscientific in his methods and did not have much understanding with astronomy. Bruno, a Dominican monk, was deemed a heretic because of his beliefs contrary to the Church. He believed that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world etc… He was burned at the stake because of his heresies and not because of his “science”. Heck even Galileo and Kepler was not sympathetic to Bruno and his writings.
There’s basically a disconnect with what Tyson is saying and the narrative in the animation which demonizes the Church. If Tyson had to do some sort of disclaimer so people would see past the Church bashing and see that the message was that Bruno was a person who exhibited a very good sense of curiosity and open-mindedness to possibilities which is important to science, but used a wrong way of convincing people about it, why use him in the first place when there are other people they can use as more concise examples? It was either just terrible writing or the producers had an agenda about them so they included this part.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
True, he wasn’t burned alive by scientists.
J
John_Savage
Guest
He wasn’t persecuted for his scientific thoughts. It was a lie. Ideologists like science when it concerns ideology. That’s why they find cosmology and evolution especially interesting.
B
Beautiful
Guest
The more I think about it the less I like the show.
diGrasse demonized the Church with a long drawn out and over dramatized part about Bruno. On the other hand, he went out of his way in a ridiculous fashion unrelated to science and spoke tenderly of Sagan (atheist) regarding a scrap of paper with telephone number and invitation to come stay with family.
I hope all good young impressionable minds were in bed asleep and not watching dGrasse make an all out effort to demonize the Catholic Church and humanize an atheist.
G
gracepoole
Guest
It’s worth noting that while Sagan was a confirmed atheist, Tyson is not. He has worked with Dawkins in the past, for example, but still does not self-identify as an atheist. This program’s purpose seems pretty clear: to invite the average layperson to involve herself in cosmology and to think of herself as a very small part in a very large, foreign universe. I applaud this goal! As for the program’s depictions of the Church, I find it difficult to have any response. As someone who has never had an interest in justifying wrongheaded choices made by Church leaders of the past, and as someone who doesn’t see today’s Church as anti-science, this portion of the program didn’t rile me in the slightest.
J
JimG
Guest
Here’s another commentary on the program.
E
empther
Guest
I missed the first episode of the new series,
but the Hallmark Channel showed many episodes of Carl Sagan’s series.
Boy are they dated! Special effects are primitive compared to today’s computer generated scenes.
But expecially irritating was Sagan’s constant presence on the screen. I got tired of his “Patty Duke era” hairstyle, and he spent too much time on European history and not enough on scientific information, which would seem to be the purpose of a series called Cosmos.
I suppose he was pandering to the lowest common denominator crowd, but I found his discussions too watered down for my taste.
I hope the new guy sticks to science and spares us having to watch his face all the time.
but the Hallmark Channel showed many episodes of Carl Sagan’s series.
Boy are they dated! Special effects are primitive compared to today’s computer generated scenes.
But expecially irritating was Sagan’s constant presence on the screen. I got tired of his “Patty Duke era” hairstyle, and he spent too much time on European history and not enough on scientific information, which would seem to be the purpose of a series called Cosmos.
I suppose he was pandering to the lowest common denominator crowd, but I found his discussions too watered down for my taste.
I hope the new guy sticks to science and spares us having to watch his face all the time.
J
JimG
Guest
Thinking more about the show’s presentation of Bruno’s “vision” of an infinite universe, I wonder if Tyson intended to present an infinite universe as a scientific fact.
The cosmological picture of the universe currently favored is not of an infinite universe. Rather it is a spherical universe about 28 billion light years in diameter and expanding, with space-time having a positive curvature.
Tyson tosses in the reference to the multiverse theory as if it were established fact rather than speculation. I wish the program had paid more careful attention to the science rather than to the enduring myth of religious opposition to science.
The cosmological picture of the universe currently favored is not of an infinite universe. Rather it is a spherical universe about 28 billion light years in diameter and expanding, with space-time having a positive curvature.
Tyson tosses in the reference to the multiverse theory as if it were established fact rather than speculation. I wish the program had paid more careful attention to the science rather than to the enduring myth of religious opposition to science.
- Status