3 of 6
3
Tyson’s Cosmos
Posted: 25 March 2014 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  341
Joined  2008-09-10
Coldheart Tucker - 24 March 2014 05:46 PM
ciceronianus - 24 March 2014 12:19 PM

The cartoons must stop.  It’s impossible to take this Cosmos seriously when they keep popping up.  They must feel their audience requires such mummery.

Its probably cheaper than hiring reenactors to do the segments and it also allows them to indulge the vanity of various people.  The producer, Seth MacFarlane, has done the voice for several characters (he was Bruno in the first episode), and he’s gotten a number of big name voice over actors to work on other episodes (as well as Cary Elwes of Princess Bride fame) to lend their talents to the episodes.  No doubt he could have gotten some big name stars to work for scale (Kirsten Dundst probably would have done it since she grew up with Sagan’s kids) in live action reenactments, but then you’d have the distraction of people saying, “Hey!  That’s what’s his name!” and not catching what the piece was about.

Remember, anyone old enough to have seen the original Cosmos in its first airing is not the target demographic for this series.  Its for everyone born after that date.  They’re more likely to be receptive to the cartoons than older folks.

I suppose you’re right.  But a voice-over providing narrative while paintings and drawings or pictures are displayed would work fine for me, and avoid the juvenile nature of the animation.  Even the voices struck me as less than credible, which is explained if McFarlane is involved in those as well.  Perhaps we should be thankful preposterous talking dogs and babies aren’t employed, with Newton and other emminent scientists telling fart jokes in exaggerated Boston accents. 

But we have depression medication being sold through commercials featuring a sad-looking cartoon woman and pills and clouds with facial features, and that may just be the way of it, now.  For me, it’s hard to feel sympathy or empathy for cartoons.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2014 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2012-02-02

BjcT0F-CUAA7HyH.jpg:large.jpeg

snake

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2014 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15
Coldheart Tucker - 25 March 2014 07:35 PM

BjcT0F-CUAA7HyH.jpg:large.jpeg

snake

LOL LOL LOL

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  341
Joined  2008-09-10

Even more cartoons.  If they’re going to do that sort of thing, they should have Rocky and Bullwinkle doing the narrative, or at least Tooter the Turtle and Mr. Wizard.  It could at least be amusing.  I can watch no more.  Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome; time for this Cosmos to go home.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I have given up after the second episode. Though I did turn it on for a minute last night to see the female biker. That was sooo wrong! Why would they pick a white female? Sexism 1; racism 0.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1158
Joined  2009-10-21
George - 31 March 2014 09:33 AM

I have given up after the second episode. Though I did turn it on for a minute last night to see the female biker. That was sooo wrong! Why would they pick a white female? Sexism 1; racism 0.

Sarcasm?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1158
Joined  2009-10-21

Had to chuckle a little as Tyson tried his hand at acting as he slipped across the event horizon of the black hole.

There was a lot to cover in this one and I was glad that a few times he let us know that he couldn’t stop and explain the concept he needed to discuss this week’s topic but that he would get back to it later. I recently heard him trying to the explain the idea of everyone being in the center of the universe, that is, no matter where you are, in whatever direction you look, you can see only as far time has allowed the light of those distant objects to get here. I’m still not sure I get it, since I still have a problem thinking of the Big Bang as having a central point.

Back down on earth, I like the way he includes the big names like Einstein, then links back to the less known names like William Herschel, demonstrating the building blocks of science and how it is a community. If a similar series was done about Christianity, it would go; Origen said God was compassionate and allowed for free will but he was declared anathema when Augustine created the idea of original sin and said curiosity is bad but Aquinas tried to say reason could be used to reach God and Calvin didn’t really like that so the Inquisition tortured people who believed what he said and all of them fought wars against Luther and his followers until everyone got tired of doing that and laws were made that people could worship as they please.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  341
Joined  2008-09-10

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.”  What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see.  If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about.  This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
ciceronianus - 31 March 2014 01:57 PM

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.”  What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see.  If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about.  This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.

But the sun doesn’t rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system.  It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it’s what we “should”  see or not. The point is not what we see, it’s how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn’t know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2014 11:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
ciceronianus - 31 March 2014 01:57 PM

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.”  What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see.  If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about.  This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.


It seems to me that the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” are idioms rather than illusions.  We should probably have new terms that suggest what is really going on.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  341
Joined  2008-09-10
Lois - 31 March 2014 09:33 PM
ciceronianus - 31 March 2014 01:57 PM

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.”  What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see.  If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about.  This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.

But the sun doesn’t rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system.  It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it’s what we “should”  see or not. The point is not what we see, it’s how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn’t know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality?

Lois

When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real.  The word “mirage” was also used.  A mirage, likewise, is not real.  The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet.  What we see is the sun, not something which is not “really” the sun.  We also see the sun “overhead.”  We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun.

The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1158
Joined  2009-10-21
ciceronianus - 01 April 2014 08:10 AM

When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. 

The episode was about relative motion. We’re moving at millions of miles per hour but hair isn’t sticking out to one side. The illusion is that we are standing still.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  341
Joined  2008-09-10
Lausten - 01 April 2014 10:25 AM
ciceronianus - 01 April 2014 08:10 AM

When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. 

The episode was about relative motion. We’re moving at millions of miles per hour but hair isn’t sticking out to one side. The illusion is that we are standing still.

Motion was referred to as well, but statements were made regarding how the sun appears on the horizon and sunset are “illusions.”

Is it the case that when we stand in one place, we’re the victims of an illusion?  We’re simply standing in one place on a moving planet.  What is it that is not real about doing so?  If I say that I’m sitting in a car while it is moving am I suffering from an illusion if I claim that I’m sitting in a car?  It would seem silly to respond “No, you’re not sitting, you’re moving!  Because your moving, you can’t be sitting.”

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1158
Joined  2009-10-21
ciceronianus - 01 April 2014 11:50 AM

  What is it that is not real about doing so?

It’s real, but it’s wrongly perceived. The earth is rotating, the sun isn’t setting. That fits the definition of “illusion”.

ciceronianus - 01 April 2014 11:50 AM

  If I say that I’m sitting in a car while it is moving am I suffering from an illusion if I claim that I’m sitting in a car?  It would seem silly to respond “No, you’re not sitting, you’re moving!  Because your moving, you can’t be sitting.”

“Sitting in a moving car” would be accurate, “sitting still” would be less accurate. “Rotating away from the sun” would be more accurate than “the sun is setting”.

Everyone has had the experience of sitting in a non-moving car when the car next to them starts moving. They grab the armrest or step on the brake because the other car gives them the illusion of movement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
ciceronianus - 01 April 2014 08:10 AM
Lois - 31 March 2014 09:33 PM
ciceronianus - 31 March 2014 01:57 PM

Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as “illusions.”  What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see.  If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about.  This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems “bent” that our senses deceive us, and we can’t know what it “really” is we interact with every day.

But the sun doesn’t rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system.  It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it’s what we “should”  see or not. The point is not what we see, it’s how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn’t know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality?

Lois

When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real.  The word “mirage” was also used.  A mirage, likewise, is not real.  The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet.  What we see is the sun, not something which is not “really” the sun.  We also see the sun “overhead.”  We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun.

The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either.

We see the real sun, yes, but we speak of it as moving. THAT’s the illusion, not the sun itself. The sun doesn’t move no matter how we describe it or “see it.”

Does your definition mean that when Criss Angel is conducting his tricks that they are not illusions because what we see is the actual Criss Angel?

Lois

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3