# Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - now on Netflix Streaming!



## Explorer (Aug 15, 2014)

If you've missed this brilliant show, and have the Netflix Streaming service, I highly suggest you watch this series. 

The first episode does a brilliant job of explaining how the scientific method actually works, including the most important part: following the evidence, wherever it leads. 

They say you can judge a person by friends and by enemies. This show has enemies who have opposed science in classrooms, in public policy, and elsewhere. 

*If you haven't seen it *and* if you value science and education, you should watch it.

If you are opposed to science, and to following the evidence wherever it leads, this show will not please you. However, you should still watch it, just in case you might decide that science and education have value.*


----------



## ferret (Aug 15, 2014)

Been watching it every night this week.


----------



## Varcolac (Aug 19, 2014)

NdGT is a fine replacement for Carl Sagan.

I have the original series on DVD and there are genuine moments in it that give me a near-religious spine-tingling sense of wonder. That stuff on the Library of Alexandria, man, it's awesome - in the real meaning of the word - I was filled with awe. It's the apogee of science documentaries.

Highly recommend watching the new series and the 1980 original for anyone interested in science, knowledge, and the history of human understanding of the cosmos.


----------



## wat (Aug 19, 2014)

I just started watching this now that it's on netflix. 

Neil DeGrasse is so good at this and the CGI is just phenomenal. 

Some of the dialogue in the historical cartoon sections are a little hard to listen to though, and sometimes I get a feeling that it's Neil Degrasse himself voicing some of the characters 

The wording neil uses and his overall manner of speaking are just so excellent.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 19, 2014)

Neil is an excellent host... but I believe the words are actually written by Ann Druyan. 

But yes, NdGT (nice usage, Varcolac!) is an excellent lecturer. 

Personally, just because of the way I feel about any ignition sequence, I get a thrill when there are "environmental effects" on the Ship of the Imagination, like when it approaches an event horizon. I even love how the light of various phenomena shines on or backlights things on the Ship's deck. It really increases the versimilitude of the experience. 

And, to be just as geeky, I love how the top and bottom panels of the Ship can be used as viewscreens.

The visual device of the Cosmic Calendar is also extremely effective in helping people understand the durations being discussed. 

My favorite aspect of the historical stories isn't actually on the show. I like how various special interests object to the stories, because they point out verifiable examples of religious groups and industry actively attacking science. The objectors don't actually present evidence that the stories are wrong, but try to sow doubt anyway. 

This series is just great all around. 

Bonus points if you can expose any tiny humans you know to tartigrades in real life. This kind of thing really opens kids's eyes to how amazing the world is, and what you can find by observation. 

I haven't been to my local university observatory for a while. I think I'm going to see what celestial phenomena are coming up, and plan a date night around them....


----------



## wat (Aug 19, 2014)

They used the Cosmic Calendar in the original Cosmos too, right?


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 19, 2014)

wat said:


> sometimes I get a feeling that it's Neil Degrasse himself voicing some of the characters


Seth Macfarlane voices some, which bugs the shit out of me. I thought it was pretty cool that he was producing and leveraging his position with Fox to create something like this, but of course the guy can't resist being on it as well. 

Super stoked it's on Netflix though, I didn't catch all of them when it aired.


----------



## Varcolac (Aug 19, 2014)

Explorer said:


> And, to be just as geeky, I love how the top and bottom panels of the Ship can be used as viewscreens.



To further push the geek envelope, the top panel shows the future, while the bottom shows the past. Intuitive!


----------



## Explorer (Aug 20, 2014)

Varcolac said:


> To further push the geek envelope, the top panel shows the future, while the bottom shows the past. Intuitive!



I couldn't rep you again, but I actually held back on this aspect. 

Yeah, the Calendar was on the first series. 

You know, another aspect which must be really tough for those opposed to the show is how it so easily brings together all these observable phenomena, and that any kid who is curious enough can determine the truth of the various interlocking disciplines being presented. "Half life? Really? Let me look that up! Wow, cool! It's true, and here's all the things which connect to it!" 

It's the completely opposite of, "Well, this can't be true, even if it is observed... because we have a Book!" "Wait, how do you know that Book is true?" "Because the Book says it is! So, you have to figure out why what you can see is actually wrong!" "?!!!"

Wow, if you're heavily dependent on arguments from authority, I can see why you'd find this show to be deeply subversive. Claims that authority trumps observation is a hard sell at best, and this show really helps start watchers on the road to critical thinking.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

Funny... since I had some time, I was reading various criticisms of the show, to see what some of the factual objections are. So, I picked one at random, the Federalist. I didn't do any research on the Federalist before opening the link, and didn't know anything about them. I thought maybe they were like the Wall Street Journal or something, but regarding legislative matters. I did look after reading the article about 5 scientific errors which Cosmos stated as fact, and you'll see those sprinkled in here and there.

It was interesting to see people talk, in a way which sounded knowledgeable, about how the multiverse hypothesis isn't real science, so the show shouldn't have included it. I did a quick search to find out what crazy people might think this thing is actually science... and I find that Steven Hawking is on board, and that the Large Hadron Collider had some experiment results which suggest the hypothesis might be correct. How could these eggheads get a result which might support this, while good staunch conservatives who attack the science of antrhopogenic global warming, and are even opposed to marriage equality, get it wrong? 

If Venus wasn't subject to the greenhouse effect, then it would be less than 200 degrrees Fahrenheit. Due to the effect, it is about 800 degrees. That same group, still opposed to global warming feels that Cosmos stating that the high temperature is due to the greenhouse effect is flat out wrong. Why? I don't really know. I don't think they do either. 

You know that illustrative device, the Cosmic Calendar? How dare the show use this device, while denying that Creation was made in 7 days? (Yes, I'm serious. This was their objection.)

The first guy to think about the universe as infinite? That was Giordano Bruno. The show states this: "{There was} only one man on the whole planet who envisioned an infinitely grander cosmos, and how was he spending New Years Eve of the year 1600? Why, in prison, of course." 

The Federalist objects to the statement about Giordano Bruno being the one guy envisioning this. Here's their objection: "Giordano Bruno Was Not More Important To Science Than Kepler And Galileo." I know, I tried to find where Cosmos made that claim. It's not there. They had to make up a statement to knock it down. 

You know, the Ship of the Imagination shouldn't make noise in space. Inaccurate science claim! In your face, Cosmos! 

BTW, the whole thing wraps up with a screed defending religion, and talking about how the US is second to none in science. I thought it was interesting that they also didn't talk about how belief in creationism is also higher in the US, or how the more educated someone is in science, the less likely it is that they weill be a Republican. 

I also found it interesting, after how wrong the article's logic was, that there was a link on the same page to another of their articles, about how it is a false narrative to claim that the right has been anti-science. Just ignore that previous article, and now read this new one. This would be lolwut, but this is just a scary level of cognitive dissonance. 

It's been interesting reading while watching yet another episode. I have to admit that i learned a lot... although I'm sure I learned something other than what they wanted me to.

Has anyone here run across something which was actually factually untrue on the new Cosmos at the point it was broadcast?


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 26, 2014)

Been putting this on every night when getting ready to sleep. Amazing program.


----------



## vansinn (Aug 26, 2014)

Eyw, I don't have netflix; any other ways?


----------



## Randy (Aug 26, 2014)

Maybe I'm missing something... as somebody who loves this subject matter, loved the original Cosmos and appreciates hearing NdT speak, I found the bits of Cosmos that I watched to be kinda boring and NdT's delivery to be particularly unconvincing.

Maybe I just caught some of the less interesting parts...?


----------



## TedEH (Aug 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> I found the bits of Cosmos that I watched to be kinda boring and NdT's delivery to be particularly unconvincing.



To be honest, I can appreciate the value of the guy as a speaker and that he's done a lot to keep people interested in science, but I can only take short doses of listening to him. The tone of voice he uses sounds like he's speaking to a child, trying to convince them that something is more fun than it really is. Everything is hyperbole. It's amusing at first but gets annoying by the end of an episode.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 26, 2014)

Ralyks said:


> Been putting this on every night when getting ready to sleep. Amazing program.



Same. I'd also go a step further and say that Tyson's voice ranks right up there with Morgan Freeman and Billy Dee Williams in terms of both sexiness and being the best thing in the world to soothe me to sleep.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 26, 2014)

vansinn said:


> Eyw, I don't have netflix; any other ways?


Should be on Fox.com for free.


----------



## Animus (Aug 28, 2014)

I watched a couple of episodes and it was alright but I thought it was kind of dumbed down and had had rather cheesy production. I think The Universe and Through the Wormhole are much deeper and better shows overall.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 28, 2014)

I think the strength of the Cosmos reboot is that it makes a very clear explanation of how science works, including how evidence has led to non-obvious conclusions, as well as how evidence leads to conflict with dogma and religion.

If one feels that a religionist has a good point in wanting both science and religion presented in a science classroom, but then watches the show, there's so many clear lessons on how science is an entirely different enterprise, willing to get rid of wrong answers. I'd say the other two shows you mention are more for those who those who already recognize science's benefits, as well as appreciate how what they're seeing is actually supported by evidence.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 1, 2014)

This quote needs to be repeated over and over and the message in it needs to sink in everyone's heads. Literally the best thing I've ever heard another human being say:




If you don't learn anything else from this series, take these words to heart.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 8, 2014)

Just finished it tonight. It was spectacular and left me wanting more in the similar vein, though I don't know if I trust Netflix's suggestion:


----------



## SKoG (Oct 9, 2014)

The Inexplicable Universe with Neil deGrasse Tyson is also on Netflix streaming. I came across it last week, don't know if it's new to streaming or what because it was never suggested to me despite me rating a bunch of other science stuff highly.

It's shorter format and obviously lower budget than Cosmos, more of a straight ~30min lecture, but still has a lot of interesting content and explanations of physics more than just the general science of Cosmos. 

The Inexplicable Universe spoilers discussion:


Spoiler



Tyson walking between the two chairs gets really distracting by the 3rd or 4th episode


----------



## wat (Oct 9, 2014)

^^I loved Inexplicable Universe 

I actually came across it because I searched for "_Cosmos_" before it came to netflix and _Inexplicable Universe_ came up.


----------

