Recently I saw Cosmos for the first time - on YouTube.
It was pretty enjoyable overall, but some episodes were far more interesting than others, IMO.
Does anyone think it won’t speak to today’s science inclined youth, or what? Personally, I think it won’t win over any non-fans of science; but, many science minded kids today will likely get a kick out of it.
Personally, I think it won’t win over any non-fans of science;
Well, it MIGHT, but I think it depends on the person and whether or not they’re open to any such challenges in the first place. Carl Sagan was a popularizer of science and he tended to be looked down on by the ivory tower types. A pity since science NEEDS to be popularized and promoted by people who can explain it in down to earth terms if it’s to gain any respectability.
It was like Harry Truman once explained to somebody when he pointed to an ordinary citizen out on the streets that it was the common man you had to appeal to. A valid observation and one which goes way beyond politricks.
IMO Cosmos is the single greatest science documentary ever made. And I think its ongoing, worldwide popularity some three decades or more after it first broadcast attests to that. Very little if any of the info there is dated.
I like the Connections series by James Burke better than Cosmos but I like both of them.
But maybe Connections speaks more to engineering than science though I don’t think they are as separate as this culture promotes them. You don’t land robots on Mars to do science without engineering.
I confess to beginning to get bored with exo-planets. OK, there is a really cool planet 800 lightyears away. So let’s make the connections in physics to figure out how to get to 20% of light speed and not finding more planets that we can’t get to.
Also we need more “average” people to get a better understanding of science instead of just cherry picking the kids that would be good at science if they can be found.
Also we need more “average” people to get a better understanding of science instead of just cherry picking the kids that would be good at science if they can be found.
I think that this will continue to improve as we slowly chip away at the cultural baggage that conflicts with learning good science. You know, Creationism and stuff.
I think that this will continue to improve as we slowly chip away at the cultural baggage that conflicts with learning good science. You know, Creationism and stuff.
Cosmos is one of the best if not THE best science documentary ever produced and it’s still topical. We watched it with our kids and they were fascinated by every show in the series. My wife bought me the companion book which I still read, and it led me to Sagan’s other books starting with “Dragons of Eden”. It is being used in classrooms today as a visual adjunct to the text. Our science department uses some of the segments when teaching evolution. It answers a lot of questions for the students and poses a few too!
Miss the hell out of Sagan. Tyson’s pretty good though.
I like the Connections series by James Burke better than Cosmos but I like both of them.
But maybe Connections speaks more to engineering than science though I don’t think they are as separate as this culture promotes them. You don’t land robots on Mars to do science without engineering.
I confess to beginning to get bored with exo-planets. OK, there is a really cool planet 800 lightyears away. So let’s make the connections in physics to figure out how to get to 20% of light speed and not finding more planets that we can’t get to.
Also we need more “average” people to get a better understanding of science instead of just cherry picking the kids that would be good at science if they can be found.
I like the Connections series by James Burke better than Cosmos but I like both of them.
But maybe Connections speaks more to engineering than science though I don’t think they are as separate as this culture promotes them. You don’t land robots on Mars to do science without engineering.
I confess to beginning to get bored with exo-planets. OK, there is a really cool planet 800 lightyears away. So let’s make the connections in physics to figure out how to get to 20% of light speed and not finding more planets that we can’t get to.
Also we need more “average” people to get a better understanding of science instead of just cherry picking the kids that would be good at science if they can be found.
I like the Connections series by James Burke better than Cosmos but I like both of them.
But maybe Connections speaks more to engineering than science though I don’t think they are as separate as this culture promotes them. You don’t land robots on Mars to do science without engineering.
I confess to beginning to get bored with exo-planets. OK, there is a really cool planet 800 lightyears away. So let’s make the connections in physics to figure out how to get to 20% of light speed and not finding more planets that we can’t get to.
Also we need more “average” people to get a better understanding of science instead of just cherry picking the kids that would be good at science if they can be found.
I aced it myself. What’s unsettling is that in doing so, I did better then 93% of the American population.
This tells us something about scientific education in this country, and it’s not good.
Same here but as to education, the emphasis is on reading and math with science as third on the list. We DO need more science classes in public education and not restrained BTW by factors such as religion or budget. Every school needs competent teachers and well stocked labs for all forms of science ed from k-12. Every fifth grader should be able to ace the quiz! If you want a shock, just ask the man on the street to define photosynthesis, then wait for some very interesting answers.
Same here but as to education, the emphasis is on reading and math with science as third on the list.
That is what is so weird. All this talk about reading and I can’t recall any teachers suggesting a book I liked in grade school. But once I discovered science fiction I couldn’t stop, But some people were saying this in the 1950s.
Teach science and then include the math when it helps with the science. The trouble is with European culture. Math was part of education for the rich before they were teaching any real science. So we still have math as a separate subject.
Teach science and then include the math when it helps with the science. The trouble is with European culture. Math was part of education for the rich before they were teaching any real science. So we still have math as a separate subject.
psik
I agree that the pendulum needs to swing in this direction.
Although, there is some of the very basic math that necessarily comes really early: memorizing addition/subtraction/multiplication/etc., teaching the basics of variables, and so on. But good scientific thinking is much much more foundational than good mathematical thinking to leading a good productive life for most people.
