And should they be spinning Science as a VS. to "religion/feelings" in 2014?
I don't want to turn this into a debate about religion. But yes. I feel like Science needs to do a better job selling itself. Way too much political power lies in a population that doesn't understand the very basic principles of science that our whole society depends upon. And it fucks up the funding for the really important things. Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I really believe that the only way to change the course of politics/capitalism in North America is to help educate people about how science can help us for the better. It doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive to religious/spiritual beliefs. Or capitalism/materialism/commercialism/anyism. But it's fucking important, and way too many people will simply dismiss scientific evidence/proofs because it doesn't fit their worldview. Having a deep understanding of science means having a humility and ability to question your own beliefs. Something that I think is severely lacking in the world.
Maybe you are referring to the space vehicle in the show...which is just a 'vehicle' that is used for the narrator...to me it isn't saying we need to see the cosmos this way...with manned exploration.
Naw.
I was referring to many posts that seemed to assume that people are only interested in science in terms of space travel. Talking about 1980 v today.
The show is called cosmos, and NDT is an astrophysicist, but cosmological research/theory today is as much about time/space/dimensions as it is about moon rocks.
I think my point was, it will get people interested in science, but not in rocket ship travel. I am sure that future episodes will talk about deeper more mind blowing ideas of the fabric of time and space.
And should they be spinning Science as a VS. to "religion/feelings" in 2014?
I don't want to turn this into a debate about religion. But yes. I feel like Science needs to do a better job selling itself. Way too much political power lies in a population that doesn't understand the very basic principles of science that our whole society depends upon. And it fucks up the funding for the really important things. Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I really believe that the only way to change the course of politics/capitalism in North America is to help educate people about how science can help us for the better. It doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive to religious/spiritual beliefs. Or capitalism/materialism/commercialism/anyism. But it's fucking important, and way too many people will simply dismiss scientific evidence/proofs because it doesn't fit their worldview. Having a deep understanding of science means having a humility and ability to question your own beliefs. Something that I think is severely lacking in the world.
How about explaining how science & religion are tied together in many cultures, instead of panting a picture that the Bible readers are dumb.
Organic and inclusive......not this or that.
It feels like its a Lab Coat Beeker Measuring Cult vs the Clergy? Does Science need a Boogieman to sell itself?
I'm kinda with Batmon.
To be fair the show only attacked religious people of 500 years ago.
Back then the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe and the concept of infinity were both sacrilegious.
Any attack on modern religion was only implied. But in my view unnecessary.
The idea that religious people don't believe in science, and that scientists don't believe in G-d is not supported by the facts.
Ecklund, director of Rice UniversityÔÇÖs Religion and Public Life Program, presented preliminary results of the study, ÔÇ£Religious Understandings of Science,ÔÇØ based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. adults including scientists, evangelical Protestants and the general public including 300 in-depth interviews with Christians (more than 140 of whom were evangelicals) Jews and Muslims.
Among the findings:
Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about GodÔÇÖs existence
18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services (compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population
15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (19 percent)
13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (17 percent)
But research also shows where the threads of suspicion run. A 2009 study by Pew Research found a wider gap between scientists and the general public on religion. And EcklundÔÇÖs new study also found:
22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population think most religious people are hostile to science
22 percent of the general population thinks scientists are hostile to religion
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict
Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion
ÔÇ£There is enormous stereotyping about this issue (of science in conflict with religion) and not very good information,ÔÇØ said Ecklund in a press release.
And should they be spinning Science as a VS. to "religion/feelings" in 2014?
I don't want to turn this into a debate about religion. But yes. I feel like Science needs to do a better job selling itself. Way too much political power lies in a population that doesn't understand the very basic principles of science that our whole society depends upon. And it fucks up the funding for the really important things. Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I really believe that the only way to change the course of politics/capitalism in North America is to help educate people about how science can help us for the better. It doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive to religious/spiritual beliefs. Or capitalism/materialism/commercialism/anyism. But it's fucking important, and way too many people will simply dismiss scientific evidence/proofs because it doesn't fit their worldview. Having a deep understanding of science means having a humility and ability to question your own beliefs. Something that I think is severely lacking in the world.
How about explaining how science & religion are tied together in many cultures, instead of panting a picture that the Bible readers are dumb.
Organic and inclusive......not this or that.
It feels like its a Lab Coat Beeker Measuring Cult vs the Clergy? Does Science need a Boogieman to sell itself?
That was my gripe with the part that seemed evangelically atheist. Sure, talk about the history but try not do it in a way that feels like sides are being taken. Because it comes off a bit douchey...as douchey as a dude taking the opposite side of the argument. Fuck the argument....just talk about what we know and how awesome it is. Religious conclusions will be drawn on their own...or not. It's up to the viewer.
Maybe you are referring to the space vehicle in the show...which is just a 'vehicle' that is used for the narrator...to me it isn't saying we need to see the cosmos this way...with manned exploration.
Naw.
I was referring to many posts that seemed to assume that people are only interested in science in terms of space travel. Talking about 1980 v today.
Oh, I got ya. The only reason I brought it up was to talk about the history of the general public's interest in space. It waned along side the manned space program.
And should they be spinning Science as a VS. to "religion/feelings" in 2014?
I don't want to turn this into a debate about religion. But yes. I feel like Science needs to do a better job selling itself. Way too much political power lies in a population that doesn't understand the very basic principles of science that our whole society depends upon. And it fucks up the funding for the really important things. Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I really believe that the only way to change the course of politics/capitalism in North America is to help educate people about how science can help us for the better. It doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive to religious/spiritual beliefs. Or capitalism/materialism/commercialism/anyism. But it's fucking important, and way too many people will simply dismiss scientific evidence/proofs because it doesn't fit their worldview. Having a deep understanding of science means having a humility and ability to question your own beliefs. Something that I think is severely lacking in the world.
How about explaining how science & religion are tied together in many cultures, instead of panting a picture that the Bible readers are dumb.
Organic and inclusive......not this or that.
It feels like its a Lab Coat Beeker Measuring Cult vs the Clergy? Does Science need a Boogieman to sell itself?
That was my gripe with the part that seemed evangelically atheist. Sure, talk about the history but try not do it in a way that feels like sides are being taken. Because it comes off a bit douchey...as douchey as a dude taking the opposite side of the argument. Fuck the argument....just talk about what we know and how awesome it is. Religious conclusions will be drawn on their own...or not. It's up to the viewer.
I don't believe pitting science against religion is the way to proceed, but I also don't think that is what NDT/the show was trying to accomplish. Pointing out that 500 years ago, religious ideologies were holding us back from understanding the universe as we know it today is not 'taking sides', it's historical fact and an important perspective for people to know about and have. If that causes some to feel they are being "attacked" by science it shouldn't be on the show/science/media/society to coddle them. When the show explicitly (and baselessly) trashes religion instead of pointing out where it was/is at odds with scientific thought/progress and potentially keeping us from moving forward then I might agree that they are fueling the 'pick a side' argument. Until then this all just sounds like some bullshit cable news rhetoric.
I don't believe pitting science against religion is the way to proceed, but I also don't think that is what NDT/the show was trying to accomplish. Pointing out that 500 years ago, religious ideologies were holding us back from understanding the universe as we know it today is not 'taking sides', it's historical fact and an important perspective for people to know about and have. If that causes some to feel they are being "attacked" by science it shouldn't be on the show/science/media/society to coddle them. When the show explicitly (and baselessly) trashes religion instead of pointing out where it was/is at odds with scientific thought/progress and potentially keeping us from moving forward then I might agree that they are fueling the 'pick a side' argument. Until then this all just sounds like some bullshit cable news rhetoric.
It wasn't overt but I felt like the animations seemed to make it a bit more than just a presentation of historical fact. Notice when Bruno closes the text that he reads (to deduce the orbit of the earth around the sun)...notice how Catholic Monks, Priests, the Pope (?) look hella pissed off and are all crowding around him the minute he shuts the book...it was stuff like that that made it (for me) cross over from historical recounting into possible agenda pushing...
I don't bring it up because it offends me...it doesn't. I'm an Atheist anyway...but (knowing the overall goal of The Cosmos series is to make Science/Space more accessible/interesting to everyone) I know that those scenes run the risk of turning off certain viewers that it is ultimately trying to engage.
For all the back and forth about this particular aspect of the show and a few other perceived shortcomings, I actually really think the first episode was a job very very very well done.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT - I really hope they talk about the Samurai crabs. That one really blew my face off when I read the book back in the day...great example of evolution and superstition converging.
Unsurprisingly, Ecklund found that 64 percent of scientists are either atheists (34%) or agnostic (30%) ÔÇö about 10 times their number in the general U.S. population. Only nine percent of scientists say they have no doubt about GodÔÇÖs existence (vs. 63% of the general public), but a surprising 27 percent of scientists have some belief in God, ranging from having some doubts, but affirming belief (9%), believing in God ÔÇ£sometimesÔÇØ (5%), or believing in a higher power thatÔÇÖs not God (8%). I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I am startled to read that so many scientists are open to religious belief of any sort.
Why is that? In part itÔÇÖs because religious scientists tend to live closeted lives, fearing backlash from their professional colleagues. One social scientist interview, called ÔÇ£Joel,ÔÇØ said in a discouraged tone that ÔÇ£the main battle you find in academia is simply getting people to take [religious questions like] the question of whether there might be a God or not, seriously.ÔÇØ
b/w
LaserWolf said:
Ecklund, director of Rice UniversityÔÇÖs Religion and Public Life Program, presented preliminary results of the study, ÔÇ£Religious Understandings of Science,ÔÇØ based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. adults including scientists, evangelical Protestants and the general public including 300 in-depth interviews with Christians (more than 140 of whom were evangelicals) Jews and Muslims.
There's your problem right there ;-)
I would imagine a similar study polling scientists from Europe would look very different.
It does seem also that Americans are more credulous on average than EuropeansÔÇöless matter of fact, less inclined to accept the authority of science (notably in regard to evolution, and geological phenomena related to evolution, such as the age of the earth), more superstitious. But it is unclear whether this is cause or consequence of the greater religiosity of Americans compared to Europeans.
Memories of Cosmos bitd are of 8 feet of Sagan bouffant mixed with mangled 'mull-yons' and 'bull-yons'.
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
In fairness, there are many instances of items developed for the military that have been boons for civilian life.
This is true. But it's a bit of a catch 22 since the R&D budgets for military tech completely dwarf those of any private / commercial sector.
And I still think we could spend more money on science and solving major problems the world is facing. The real return on investment for all the resources the world spends on war and security pretty depressing.
Batmon - I don't think that pitting religion vs science is an effective or necessary move on the show's part. But I understand that it might be beneficial to point out how, historically, many religions have been very much against the spread of Science and knowledge. Not really stooping to the same tactic by mocking or belittling current religions and religious people, but just telling it like it is, you know? There's no debate that Science and Religion are both huge forces shaping public opinion and government policy. They seldom overlap when it comes to stances/ideals, so it's natural that polarization will happen when they're being discussed.
For me, the biggest thing I think anyone can learn from Science is humility and perspective.
Of course you have the Humvee, where would we be with out that.
And the Jeep.
Kevlar, that's kinda useful.
Atomic energy
Of course medicine is where the military shines.
So many more gun shot victims are being saved because of lessons drs have learned on the battlefield.
:icallbullshit:
Of course you have the Humvee, where would we be with out that.
And the Jeep.
Kevlar, that's kinda useful.
Atomic energy
Of course medicine is where the military shines.
So many more gun shot victims are being saved because of lessons drs have learned on the battlefield.
:icallbullshit:
You're posting on one. But, I also kinda agree with BeatChemist, and would prefer direct spending on scientific endeavors over more guns.
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
I'll have to check that out. Y'alls 'Wonders of The Universe' was pretty fucking awesome, in my opinion.
Comments
I don't want to turn this into a debate about religion. But yes. I feel like Science needs to do a better job selling itself. Way too much political power lies in a population that doesn't understand the very basic principles of science that our whole society depends upon. And it fucks up the funding for the really important things. Spending billions of dollars on defence budgets and other ways to kill the human race seems like a waste of resources to me.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I really believe that the only way to change the course of politics/capitalism in North America is to help educate people about how science can help us for the better. It doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive to religious/spiritual beliefs. Or capitalism/materialism/commercialism/anyism. But it's fucking important, and way too many people will simply dismiss scientific evidence/proofs because it doesn't fit their worldview. Having a deep understanding of science means having a humility and ability to question your own beliefs. Something that I think is severely lacking in the world.
Naw.
I was referring to many posts that seemed to assume that people are only interested in science in terms of space travel. Talking about 1980 v today.
The show is called cosmos, and NDT is an astrophysicist, but cosmological research/theory today is as much about time/space/dimensions as it is about moon rocks.
I think my point was, it will get people interested in science, but not in rocket ship travel. I am sure that future episodes will talk about deeper more mind blowing ideas of the fabric of time and space.
You'll like this too then:
)
I thought it was Cos-meh. Wormhole on Science Channel is where thangs are really gettin done.
)
How about explaining how science & religion are tied together in many cultures, instead of panting a picture that the Bible readers are dumb.
Organic and inclusive......not this or that.
It feels like its a Lab Coat Beeker Measuring Cult vs the Clergy? Does Science need a Boogieman to sell itself?
So why waste air time reinforcing that?
If its a "given" what are u gaining?
Guess they need all the help/salvation they can get.
I don't think the right word is dumb. It's more ignorant IMO. And that can work both ways.
But anyone that seriously tries to tell others that the world is only 6000 years old :ehhx2:
And I have no problem people wanting to believe that. Just not trying to push that belief on others.
Of course.....im just saying that this show is wasting energy presenting some dichotomy or inferiority.
To be fair the show only attacked religious people of 500 years ago.
Back then the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe and the concept of infinity were both sacrilegious.
Any attack on modern religion was only implied. But in my view unnecessary.
The idea that religious people don't believe in science, and that scientists don't believe in G-d is not supported by the facts.
Among the findings:
Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about GodÔÇÖs existence
18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services (compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population
15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (19 percent)
13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (17 percent)
But research also shows where the threads of suspicion run. A 2009 study by Pew Research found a wider gap between scientists and the general public on religion. And EcklundÔÇÖs new study also found:
22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population think most religious people are hostile to science
22 percent of the general population thinks scientists are hostile to religion
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict
Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion
ÔÇ£There is enormous stereotyping about this issue (of science in conflict with religion) and not very good information,ÔÇØ said Ecklund in a press release.
ÔÇ£The two groups donÔÇÖt have to approach religion with an attitude of combat,ÔÇØ Ecklund said. ÔÇ£Rather, they should approach it with collaboration in mind.ÔÇØ
http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/02/16/science-religion-aaas-hamonnye-evangelical/#sthash.03mwp7ab.dpuf
They are pretty different views.
Much of religion is based upon explicitly NON-SCIENTIFIC things.
There are examples where they intersect.
Mayan, Dogon, and Egyptian Cosmologies have both attributes.
Its not all Fantasy based systems. There is math and technology involved.
That was my gripe with the part that seemed evangelically atheist. Sure, talk about the history but try not do it in a way that feels like sides are being taken. Because it comes off a bit douchey...as douchey as a dude taking the opposite side of the argument. Fuck the argument....just talk about what we know and how awesome it is. Religious conclusions will be drawn on their own...or not. It's up to the viewer.
Oh, I got ya. The only reason I brought it up was to talk about the history of the general public's interest in space. It waned along side the manned space program.
BINGO
I don't know anyone who thinks art will send you to Hell for masturbating or that it created the Milky Way galaxy.
But I'm sure LazyWolf has some very special friends who might.
Tyson is doing Sagan proud in that respect, no doubt.
Absolutely.
The anti-science nuts are much stronger and more numerous than they were in Sagan's prime.
It wasn't overt but I felt like the animations seemed to make it a bit more than just a presentation of historical fact. Notice when Bruno closes the text that he reads (to deduce the orbit of the earth around the sun)...notice how Catholic Monks, Priests, the Pope (?) look hella pissed off and are all crowding around him the minute he shuts the book...it was stuff like that that made it (for me) cross over from historical recounting into possible agenda pushing...
I don't bring it up because it offends me...it doesn't. I'm an Atheist anyway...but (knowing the overall goal of The Cosmos series is to make Science/Space more accessible/interesting to everyone) I know that those scenes run the risk of turning off certain viewers that it is ultimately trying to engage.
For all the back and forth about this particular aspect of the show and a few other perceived shortcomings, I actually really think the first episode was a job very very very well done.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT - I really hope they talk about the Samurai crabs. That one really blew my face off when I read the book back in the day...great example of evolution and superstition converging.
b/w
There's your problem right there ;-)
I would imagine a similar study polling scientists from Europe would look very different.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/06/why-are-americans-more-religious-than-europeans-posner.html
...because they're told to be:
In fairness, there are many instances of items developed for the military that have been boons for civilian life.
Memories of Cosmos bitd are of 8 feet of Sagan bouffant mixed with mangled 'mull-yons' and 'bull-yons'.
I preferred our long running Brit version (typically low-rent) Teh Sky At Night, wherein 2 geriatric peetos sit in a studio and discuss the latest cosmological development against the backdrop of a 40 y.o, pic of the Crab Nebula.
This is true. But it's a bit of a catch 22 since the R&D budgets for military tech completely dwarf those of any private / commercial sector.
And I still think we could spend more money on science and solving major problems the world is facing. The real return on investment for all the resources the world spends on war and security pretty depressing.
Batmon - I don't think that pitting religion vs science is an effective or necessary move on the show's part. But I understand that it might be beneficial to point out how, historically, many religions have been very much against the spread of Science and knowledge. Not really stooping to the same tactic by mocking or belittling current religions and religious people, but just telling it like it is, you know? There's no debate that Science and Religion are both huge forces shaping public opinion and government policy. They seldom overlap when it comes to stances/ideals, so it's natural that polarization will happen when they're being discussed.
For me, the biggest thing I think anyone can learn from Science is humility and perspective.
Of course you have the Humvee, where would we be with out that.
And the Jeep.
Kevlar, that's kinda useful.
Atomic energy
Of course medicine is where the military shines.
So many more gun shot victims are being saved because of lessons drs have learned on the battlefield.
:icallbullshit:
You're posting on one. But, I also kinda agree with BeatChemist, and would prefer direct spending on scientific endeavors over more guns.
I'll have to check that out. Y'alls 'Wonders of The Universe' was pretty fucking awesome, in my opinion.