This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.
Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.
Originally Posted by Fish:
I can agree with that. I just thought it was ironic that to show science and religion can coexist, you chose a person who once told the Pope to :-) about the Big Bang because it might make the church look foolish. A guy who was passionately adamant about the separation of church and science.
Science and religion can certainly coexist. The only time you'll ever hear me protest is when religion is presented as competition to science in regards to explaining the physics of the universe.
How about when the word "science" is invoked as a battering ram to enforce political ideologies without any regard for actual science? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
America values iPods and teen moms.
Agree, not all but way too many. Cosmo's is the kind of show that can move that needle. I know it will never change where scientists are as respected or people aspire to as say a wall street banker and his money but we don't need the majority. Just one or two in each classroom to consider science as a worthy career. [Reply]
I watched the two first episodes and was sadly disappointed. Dumbed way down. They might make a difference on first graders I suppose but I was guessing they were intended for audiences at a higher level. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
How about when the word "science" is invoked as a battering ram to enforce political ideologies without any regard for actual science?
I protest loudly in those situations as well. A good current example is climate change. The government rarely does anything in the interest of science. Only in the profit of science. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
I protest loudly in those situations as well. A good current example is climate change. The government rarely does anything in the interest of science. Only in the profit of science.
My biggest problem in the science vs. religion debate is that people very rarely actually apply the scientific method. For so many, "science" is the new religion, not based on observation and testing, but based on faith and indoctrination.
People fail to comprehend that while the laws of nature may be constant and infallible, "science" - our unique understanding of the universe - is not. In fact, fallibility is a fundamental building block upon which we learn. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
You can disagree, but the reality is that many religious people have made far greater contributions to science than you have.
Such as the theory of an expanding universe.
Look, I'm an unapologetic atheist, so I don't really even understand the point you are making. I don't tell the pope how to pray and I don't tell astronomers how much smarter I am than they. If they can reconcile the two, why the hell should I have a problem with that?
What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? You do realize not every christian is a fundie right?
Where did I say I made any contribution to science? I did not. My point is in the history of scientific contribution many religious people have made contributions to science and the list of the church persecuting than the church supporting at the time is a much, much greater list. With every discovery that disagreed with theology there was the church to smack them down.
I do agree that not every christian is a fundamentalist, however, this was not always the case. We're talking about discoveries that conflicted with church in a time where it was entirely unacceptable.
Not really sure why you got all uppity but the fact of the matter is that if you believe that religion has contributed more than hindered science you are seriously wrong. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
I watched the two first episodes and was sadly disappointed. Dumbed way down. They might make a difference on first graders I suppose but I was guessing they were intended for audiences at a higher level.
It's an impossible scenario to satisfy the majority. You want to reach a generation of kids and turn them onto science. You need to make it interesting for adults. It is a science show that's attempting to educate non-scientists on science. If you do too much of a deep dive into the scientific weeds, you will lose the non scientists and the kids. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
My biggest problem in the science vs. religion debate is that people very rarely actually apply the scientific method. For so many, "science" is the new religion, not based on observation and testing, but based on faith and indoctrination.
People fail to comprehend that while the laws of nature may be constant and infallible, "science" - our unique understanding of the universe - is not. In fact, fallibility is a fundamental building block upon which we learn.
I think that applies to the average layman, people who believe infomercials or those pushing an agenda than an actual scientist. TBH, one of the key things I'm taught in school today is that the most important step of the scientific method is to survive scrutiny and be willing to adjust your hypothesis. In fact it is pressed more upon me now than in the entire time in school twenty years prior. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
I watched the two first episodes and was sadly disappointed. Dumbed way down. They might make a difference on first graders I suppose but I was guessing they were intended for audiences at a higher level.
You thought a show where NDT was floating on a ship of the imagination was intended for a higher level of thinking audience? This show is intended to create an interest in kids. That is how it is going to make a difference. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
My biggest problem in the science vs. religion debate is that people very rarely actually apply the scientific method. For so many, "science" is the new religion, not based on observation and testing, but based on faith and indoctrination.
People fail to comprehend that while the laws of nature may be constant and infallible, "science" - our unique understanding of the universe - is not. In fact, fallibility is a fundamental building block upon which we learn.
I'm not sure what science indoctrination you're speaking of. What do you mean by that? And I'd say a better description is trusting the scientific method. Faith is belief in something with no evidence. Trust is based upon a pattern of evidence.
I don't think science should be looked at as infallible or constant. Not in the slightest. Science is ever changing. And that's not a bad thing at all as long as it's almost always changing for the better. Improving. Change is fine as long as it's in the proper direction. The laws of nature need continuous challenge and reevaluation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dick Bull:
You thought a show where NDT was floating on a ship of the imagination was intended for a higher level of thinking audience? This show is intended to create an interest in kids. That is how it is going to make a difference.
Yeah I realize that now but I didn't watch the first Cosmos with Sagan and NOVA with Tyson is done at a higher level which is what I know of him. I'll still watch though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Yeah I realize that now but I didn't watch the first Cosmos with Sagan and NOVA with Tyson is done at a higher level which is what I know of him. I'll still watch though.
You should check out the original COSMOS. It was really incredible.
If you turn on your popup blocker and don't install anything no matter what the popup windows say, you'll find all the original COSMOS episodes here:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
I thought the 2nd episode was way better than the first. A little deeper dive into the science but still entertaining and I bet still kept kids attention.
This show is going to make a difference in science. There are kids sitting at home watching this going...........being a scientist might be cool. Science is pretty interesting.
Agreed. This show has the potential to be huge. [Reply]
They are slowly building up. I think they are directly targeting the demographic that has been fed creationism and religion, and they want to replace it with the ability to understand how to view the universe critically.
I think its a great start, in the way that they can build to a crescendo and then really start laying down the science.
Also, who knew Fox would air something like this. Maybe the world does have a sparkle of a chance at not being a total cesspool. [Reply]
