/sci/ - Science & Math

>pop science
Please stop wasting valuable oxygen.

>>6494672
It's mediocre. It has some nice segments of episodes but a lot of times an individual episode feels like it lacks a certain direction like the original series had (episode 6 is an example of this). Also the historical animation is really dumb. They rely on it way too much and I wish they had just used actors and kept it narrated by Tyson rather than having blocky looking flash animated caricatures say embarrassing things like "Hell's bells!".

It's a great show that brings straightforward basic information about the universe to the masses.

People who take themselves too seriously don't like it because they don't feel smart enough for watching it.

>>6494683
>implying there's anything else on /sci/

It's an extremely watered down version of the past 30 years of significantly more enchanting documentaries.

It keeps dropping in ratings because it sucks, it is too short and it needs too many commercial breaks.

It is impossible for it to enchant children because it is on too late, they should be in bed. It is impossible for it to enchant adults, they already ignored this shit in school.

>>6494733
You keep posting this crap, and you blame /sci/ for YOUR pseudoscience, popsci and philosophy garbage?

i think its pretty hit and miss, definitely gonna keep watching every episode though. as the other anon said many of the episodes seem to lack direction or a solid subject matter or theme. also those cartoons, god they're annoying. also also they keep trying to build tension right before commercial breaks, i cant be the only one that hates that; takes away from the sense of wonder in my opinion. could have been really great.

I find it that anything science related shown on channels other than PBS are completely dumbed down for the average person.

It's good, but i think it's kind of racist to have a black science man narrating it.

>>6494707
Also I should add, the music doesn't really stick with me. It's usually trying to be far too grand and dramatic with its orchestral swells, etc. Music score from the original was either well known classical pieces or more personal and subdued piano pieces.

You could sort of compare this to their respective shows on the whole as well. New Cosmos just tries way too hard and it ends up looking silly half the time. Old Cosmos, while it could certainly be silly, didn't try to overdo it in terms of CGI or overall dramatic effect.

>>6494672
If you ask /sci/ it's an abomination and everyone who watches is it a pop sci faggot. If you ask me I think it's a pretty good show.

>>6494793
The eye candy for the masses bothers me too. For example, they represent DNA as some hairy twisted scaly bacteria instead of a bunch of balls (what it actually looks like) or the structural formula of every compound colored. At least they could do compound shaped lego blocks.

>>6494812
I didn't mind that part so much tbh. There were other times where it just looked too staged and/or fakey, like with the little microbe battle in the water drop. It had some really nice CGI visuals in the first episode from what I remember though. I think it's more of a matter of trying to wow the audience with action scenes or some such.

>>6494820
My autism makes me want to make a show in which everything looks like what it actually looks like. It would bore the people, i know, but i don't mind.

They're doing OK with the budget and time constraints compared to the PBS version.

First, they can't fly a film crew out to every historical location.

Second, they have 15-20 minutes less airtime due to commercials. Was disappointed by the Einstein Bike Ride 2.0, because they didn't have 10 more minutes to explain doppler shift and sound/light the way they did 30 years ago.

But within these constraints, they have something going for them that 1980-me didn't have. The internets. In 1980 I would have had to go to the school library and try to look stuff up that I didn't understand. Any kid today can just punch in "relativity" or "redshift" on Wikipedia and get the scoop. Any parent should be able to do the same thing during the commercial breaks, but the show's not going after scientifically-engaged parents, it's going after the kids who want to find out on their own.

In that respect, the show's doing well. Mom and Dad don't need to be around (and if you want to interpret the real target audience as the kids of parents who themselves are on-the-fence/dont-know-enough-to-decide about science-vs-fundamentalism parents? It's doing a fantastic job here.)

World's changed in 30 years. So has TV. So has the ability to look stuff on the internets. I can deal with it.

>>6494855
>First, they can't fly a film crew out to every historical location.
They can recreate them in a set, people won't notice.

> The internets.
>Wikipedia
Top kek. I feel shame for this generation, they will only be getting partial knowledge written by nerds on the innerdwebs and not actual scientists.

>>6494836
It would be awesome.

>>6494744
>I'm just going to complain about the problem and never do anything about it :^)

I don't like the new ones. They're too dumbed down. Something about Tyson's voice/mannerisms makes me feel like it's a kids show. Disappointing content, though a show that promotes skepticism on a major network during primetime is nice.

the latest episode kinda sucked

They called transport proteins "tiny creatures"

The average jerk is going to think he has tiny little lightbulb-with-legs things walking around inside him.

>>6494672
It's alright, I enjoy it. Might not be for everyone but the first episode was the tightest shit.

>>6494918

Great. From intergalactic space that looks basically dark to elementary particles that don't look at all.

I don't like it being too artsy. They represent atoms by bohrs model, they should at least have made them cloudy spheres. The way they represent minerals is awful.

>>6495160
I meant using "visors" to represent other stuff like electrical charges, forces, fields and stuff.

>>6494672

>>PEOPLE WANT THEIR BACON, BUT DON'T WANT TO SEE HOW IT'S MADE

Some people are crying that they want to see the end result, and not the process of all the corruption and obstacles scientists and science had to go through.

"I don't care who was jailed, or murdered for their theories. Just show me some cgi about space."

People cry that it's anti religion - but is it anti fact? If they're lying, then prove it. If it's true, then yes, it's anti religion.

>>6495172
History is important to encourage people to do science. Maybe they have similar ideas to te ones scientists had back in their days.

>>6495172

History is not a sequence of "The good guys vs the bad guys" cartoons as NDT wants you believe to , Mr super-sceptic.

>>6495171

In other words, they shouldn't use the symbols and metaphors they want to use but those you want them to use.

>>6495174
>History is important to encourage people to do science.

No it is not.

You know what IS actually important to encouraging people to do science?

$$MONEY$$

You're fucking thick as molasses in winter.

>>6495257
Metaphors suck. People end up thinking spacetime is made of balloons.

>>6495245
The study of history is typically the study of conflicts.

>>6495270

So we're back at >>6495160

I just watched the first episode and I liked it

>>6495271
When there is a "good guy" and a "bad guy" then it is not actually history that is being taught, it is propaganda.

I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. I guess I'm indicating a commonly overlooked obvious point.

>>6495280
0/10

>>6495284
how about this one

>>6495275
At least people have a chance to understand reality instead of bullshit.

>>6495286
>>6495280
moar

>>6495271

The study of history =/= what piques your interest and conflict =/= good vs. bad.

You really uncritically believe all that pop history NDT serves you, right?

>>6495291
I used to have a fuckton, lost them all somehow though.

This is the last one I have.

>>6494954

> a show that promotes skepticism

I just want to point out that when a thousand scientists say one thing and a handful of corporate clowns and/or preachers say the opposite then "we cannot know" is the scepticist's legitimate conclusion for a whereas trusting the scientists is basically buying an argument from authority.

Scepticism sounds nice but in the end it only makes you doubt that people landed on the moon and finally fall for the charlatan with the shiniest teeth.

>>6494954

> a show that promotes skepticism

I just want to point out that when a thousand scientists say one thing and a handful of corporate clowns and/or preachers say the opposite then "we cannot know" is the scepticist's legitimate conclusion whereas trusting the scientists is basically buying an argument from authority.

Scepticism sounds nice but in the end it only makes you doubt that people landed on the moon and finally fall for the charlatan with the shiniest teeth.

>>6494672
I think it's a lot of fun. Personal Voyage left some impossibly large shoes to fill and while STO doesn't completely fill them, it comes a lot closer than I expected it to when I first heard about the reboot a year ago.

The animated historical sequences were hit or miss at first but they've improved significantly the last few episodes, especially with the Herschel and Patterson material.

The more recent episodes are also much better at weaving all the different elements of the episode together. Hiding in the Light is a great example - showing the slow but steady progress towards unlocking the secrets of astronomical spectroscopy while also discussing the properties of light, and stressing the importance of transparency and free expression in science.


Is it a substitute for a college astronomy lecture? No. But it was never supposed to be. It's entertaining and relatively informative and I hope the second half is as good as the first.

>>6495293

>>6495371
top kek

>>6495376
I have a lot of them hanging around.

>>6495382
I love these things. Please post what you can

Good for people that aren't scientifically literate. I understand, in depth 95% of what he talks about, and he only barely scrapes the surface in his "explorations".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pop sci.
Lose the edge.

>>6495386

>>6495391

>>6495397

I love these, found one

>>6495403

>>6495388
Cool!

God exists outside of the universe!

Popsci proved it, I believe it and real science can suck it.

>>6495408
Why does Neil provide such comedy gold?

>>6495419

>>6495423

>>6495280
>>6495286
>>6495293
>>6495371
>>6495382
>>6495391
>>6495397
>>6495403
>>6495405
>>6495408
>>6495419
>>6495423

these are funny, but why is it always Neil deGrasse Tyson in these things? Why not Brian Cox or Michio Kaku or something?

>>6495423
>>6495419
>>6495408
>>6495405
>>6495403
>>6495397
>>6495391
>>6495382
>>6495371
>>6495431
thanks bro, these are fucking great

>>6495431
Who says these ones are restricted to Neil only? I have a lot of them, but i kept it Neil themed since Cosmos was the topic.

>>6495441
oops, meant to quote
>>6495435

>>6495431

>>6495435
Cox(dicks) would be funny with just the name, but he has that "I'm trying to seduce underage girls." voice and that British accent to make it all worse. It's kinda hard to make bigger jokes than he already is.

Kaku obviously sold out to main stream media. I can't blame him for wanting the money, but he shitspews popsci for the money

Black Science Guy takes himself and his job seriously as hell. That makes it a lot more fun to give him misquotels.

>>6495454
Pretty much this.

>>6495459
>Neil 'the grass' Tyson

>>6495459
That watermark gets me every time.

>>6495471

>>6495479

>>6495339
Completely different target audience, goals, and means of presentation.

>>6495485
Facebook: Black Science Man

>>6494810
Some of the episodes I found to be kind of pointless, but were still good for those who lack knowledge. I did find the last episode was interesting and the most interesting one thus far. I did like the faunhofer one as well

>>6494780
that's the point, it appeals to an audience that would usually dismiss large ideas like evolution and the theory or relativity as "too difficult to understand", i.e., those people who fucked around in school or are just dumb.

No, you won't enjoy it much except or the interesting cinematography but for some people (and many, many children) this is a huge deal.

>>6495397
but anything under absolute zero is actually hotter than anything above it because entropy

I like Sagan's better. He just has a much better way of talking about similar issues. For some reason Tyson always sounds like he's reading from a script. He just doesn't have the right inflections and doesn't make it sound as exciting. Plus Sagan spoke with a more poetic prose. Tyson simply repeats that kind of stuff from the original rather than make it his own. It's also a little too heavy on the animation. I think they did that to keep costs down.

I don't think it was the right time for a new Cosmos. We're too far deep into this "culture war" mentality. You can't present any one side of anything and call it educational without people whining about presenting the other. Regardless if it's right or wrong. And being critical has to mean some political or ideological motivation is behind it. If you criticize a group, it's because you hate that group or hold the polar opposite belief as they do. There's just too much noise and stuff for people to focus on rather than the actual content. This is apparent in every thread about Cosmos on 4chan.

Can't wait until someone edits the new CG along with Carl's narration. I almost wish that's how they did it to begin with. Just remake the original with Carl's voice, new CG and have Neil do updated portions of the show.

>>6495172
>>if theyre lying prove it
thats not how this works you little shit.jpg.

>>6495573
You misunderstand. They're dumbed down EVEN FOR average people.

>>6494672
just very very very basic

>>6495441
This one is the absolute best of any of them. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

ITT: sciencefags complaining it's not sciencey enough

If they just showed the actual experiments and the data nobody would watch, I think everyone's forgetting that this show is meant for the hulking moronic masses who do not even know one science. That's why they have to have funny cartoons (by the way Seth MacFarlane produced the damn thing, I don't know why anyone didn't expect some kind of animation) and commercial breaks and silly ways to explain it to people.

>>6494737
>It keeps dropping in ratings because it sucks

[citation needed]

>>6495621
They couldn't just throw some CG onto the old Cosmos and rerelease it. The effects weren't the only thing about the old series that were dated - a lot of the information presented is outdated now as well.

It'd be like re-releasing a book on quantum physics written in the 40s as a modern textbook and only updating the pictures.


>>6496081
I'm sure some of the more autistic posters on /sci/ would love watching a show that was nothing but an hour of data plots every week.

>>6494737
>It keeps dropping in ratings because it sucks, it is too short and it needs too many commercial breaks.
Last week saw an 8% rise in viewership (up to 11 million) and the series has been well received by audiences (see image - source : IMDb ratings)

>>6495637
You're grossly overestimating the average persons intelligence and knowledge when it comes to these subjects

>>6496919

I was also a bit surprised to learn that appaently everybody who's not a complete loser understands relativity >>6495621

>>6497128
Pick one
>Goes on 4chan
>Isn't a loser

>>6494855
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the show though? You're just excusing a lack of incomplete explanations by saying people should just go online to learn more. I think someone might have already mentioned the light speed bike scene but it's a perfect example. In A Personal Voyage, Sagan took the time to explain the doppler effect, effects of and limitations of light speed travel, etc. In the newer version they barely even touched on this at all. I don't even think they explained red or blue shift or the doppler effect. It goes back to the argument that the newer version is more superficial; it's more concerned about wowing people with nice visuals than actually trying to put fundamental scientific concepts into layman's terms.

>>6497543
*a lack of more complete explanations

>>6497543


you're never going to explain the nuances of modern physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology to the common man.

if the common man wants to learn these things, he must actually study them, as we did when we were in his shoes.

there is no shortcut to true understanding.

>>6497563
I'd argue that the original Cosmos wasn't about "modern physics, astronomy, etc.". It was much broader than that. It put fundamental, well known concepts into simple terms, as well as historical and cosmological. It wasn't about the cutting edge.

>>6497543
>Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the show though?
That depends on what you think the purpose of the show is.

When Personal Voyage was made, there was still a great deal of public interest in space and science from the science boom of the 50s and 60s. The purpose of PV was to inform an already very interested public.

Spacetime Odyssey doesn't have that advantage. Public interest in space and science and even public trust of the scientific community are the lowest they've been in decades. STO's goal is trying to get people interested again, hence the huge emphasis on the 'wow' factor.

You see a similar trend in most present-day science outreach efforts.

>>6497568
I should probably amend my statement to an extent. Yes, the new cosmos seems more focused on the "wow" factor but at the same time it seems like they're simply trying to cram in as much "cool" stuff into an episode without actually giving an episode a strong direction or narrative. The newer episode was actually a bit better in this regard (despite the annoying overuse of animations) but the episode before that felt like a mess, with its central thesis getting completely lost in its meanderings.