Cosmos: Le Spacetime Odyssey

[Anonymous No.6363460]

why is this allowed?

[Anonymous No.6363471]

>carl sagans widow
>that black science guy people generally like
>a show about science stuff that is aimed towards average people and might actually get seen by average people thus increasing awareness of and support for science in general
how dare they

[Anonymous No.6363476]

>>6363460
because most of the butt hurt hatred of him and "popsci" in general is focused here

[Anonymous No.6363477]

>>6363471

is it like when you start learning science in school?

...im kidding, but only just

[Anonymous No.6363486]

>>6363471
If the new series is just about black holes, quantum entanglement, many worlds, string theory guesses, etc.. then I will an hero

[Anonymous No.6363487]

>>6363460
Because there is nothing wrong with it? If you don't like the individual hosting it, gtfo. Stop posting unnecessary complaint threads. There is nothing wrong with TV entertainment with science. If you dont like it, again, gtfo.

[Anonymous No.6363492]

Am I the only one who thought of this?

[Anonymous No.6363495]

>>6363487
Ya but they could have easily just made a new series, this is just capitalizing on Carl Sagan's fame and they will probably only bring shame to the "cosmos" series.

I'll watch it though, I hope he does a good job, but I doubt it.. see >>6363486

[Reda !!gAyq5lzi952 No.6363519]

Have you guys even bothered to watch the trailers for it? It uses a lot of similar visuals to the original series. It seems more like an updated remake rather than a sequel. So no, it's not "only going to be about black holes and string theory" bullshit.

I'm actually pretty optimistic about this; reading Tyson's thoughts on it, seeing how he reacts to Sagan in this interview...it's all nothing but positive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeqrN3Bfro8

I think if anyone is going to reboot this, it might as well be Tyson. And Ann Druyan ("Sagans widow") actually helped co-write the original series.

When did /sci/ get so retarded?

[Anonymous No.6363529]

>>6363495
>this is just capitalizing on Carl Sagan's fame
Exactly and Sagan would approve. Attracting more viewers isn't about fame or fortune, it's about science outreach.

There's nothing wrong with updating a series to get a new audience interested in astronomy.

[Anonymous No.6363535]

>>6363460

I think it is awesome that Mr Family Guy decided to throw his money and weight behind this project, all because he loves science.

[Anonymous No.6363538]

>>6363460
>why is this allowed?

Because as incredible and still relevant as Sagan's original Cosmos is, it's also nearly 35 years old and you need something with a bit more flair to really capture the attention of the next generation.

[Anonymous No.6363544]

>>6363486
>an hero
Nice to see oldfag maymays are still supported 'round these parts

[Anonymous No.6365945]

He is very qualified to talk about astrology.

[Anonymous No.6366035]

>>6365945
Having a single ordinary phd is not "very", just sufficiently. Like any other postgrad would be.

[Anonymous No.6366113]

Because people outside of 4chan usually aren't so racist that they would have a problem with a competent and literate man talking about science to the masses due to their skin color.

[Anonymous No.6366145]

>>6365945
hehe, astrology

[Anonymous No.6366222]

>>6363471
Don't forget Steven Soter from the original is working with Druyan and Tyson

[Anonymous No.6366229]

>>6363519
I'm digging the new 'Starship of the Imagination' design.

[Anonymous No.6366258]

>>6366229
I want one.

[Anonymous No.6366343]

>>6366145
>>6365945
Oh lord, I didn't even observe it the first time, unconscious part just fixed it to astronomy for me.

[Anonymous No.6366387]

>>6363460
The effects look great, the animated sequences look intriguing, every one of the original creators (apart from Sagan of course) are back, NDT seems like the type to do a new Cosmos justice, and I hear MacFarlane cashed in every favor he's earned with Fox over the last decade to secure that primetime slot.

If it's entertaining and educational - awesome. If it's good enough to inspire a few more people to pursue careers in science and technology - all the better.

[Anonymous No.6366393]

Will they discuss the threat of nuclear war and the development of the the scientific mindset across human history? If not then it is shit.

[Anonymous No.6366407]

Cosmos was a big thing back in the day because there was fuck all science programming, You had some nat geo documentaries and... pretty much that.

Nowadays you have a shit-ton of pop-sci channels airing pop-sci shows 24/7. Even if this edition of Cosmos was the pinnacle of production values and scientific education, it would be trying to succeed in a poisoned well, where in most viewers minds a science show is and has to be about random household items blowing up or a bunch of scientists chroma keyed onto a windows screensaver spouting one liners about the end of the world.

On top of that, I can't fucking stand screamo tyson. "I'M FUCKING SHOUTING IN YOUR FACE ABOUT SCIENCE, THAT MEANS I MUST BE RIGHT. WHAT'S THAT, YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? LET ME TRY A LITTLE LOUDER". Can't stand how much TV has fallen in love with this second rate scientist.

[Anonymous No.6366439]

>>6366393
>the threat of nuclear war
Nonexistent.
>the development of the scientific mindset across human history
Few percentile of the world population have got it, the rest doesn't. It was like that in the very beginning, it is like that now and it's not going to change in the foreseeable future.
There you go, mate.

[Anonymous No.6366444]

>>6366407
>can't stand average joe scientists inspiring people
>would rather people talk about celebrity relationships and reality shows
You should be complaining about why there aren't MORE people like Tyson. The alternative public interests are horrifying.

[Anonymous No.6366448]

>>6366439
>nuclear war is not a threat
Nuclear weapons exist. The fuck do you mean they aren't a threat? They are the GREATEST threat to the long term survival of our species.

[Anonymous No.6366461]

>>6366448
Their existence is exactly the reason they are not a threat. No one in their sane mind would go for a nuclear war, because the consequences of that are very soonish, so to speak. Everyone in dat powa cares only about their lifetime and it's not gonna very optimistic when you your country is on fire. Unless rl version of Moriarty suddenly appears we're pretty safe.

[Anonymous No.6366467]

>>6366461
Oh, if you mean after our lifetime problems can arise... Well the fuck do you care?

[Anonymous No.6366479]

>>6363476
I miss when /sci/ was like this

[Anonymous No.6366487]

>>6366479
Nah, that never happened.

[Anonymous No.6366491]

>>6366479
I'm glad we got rid of these retards.

[Anonymous No.6366493]

>>6366479
My theory is that the aspies of /sci/ thought they could create enough actual science content to far outpost troll threads without the help of more outlandish, speculative /sci/ posters; so they drove such posters off /sci/. The barren wasteland before us is the result.

Fuck, I miss the passion this board used to have.

[Anonymous No.6366507]

>>6366491
hey I miss mad sci he posted good ocean stuff.

remember when /sci/ pitched in on that seabase thing?

[Anonymous No.6366512]

>>6366507
That pedophile was the worst. He only came here for role playing with a bunch of children. He had no science education at all (got expelled from his _arts_ school because of violent behaviour) and he had the audacity to spam the board with his low quality garbage almost every day. After he left, /sci/'s quality significantly improved.

[Anonymous No.6366519]

>>6366461
MAD is insane. We all know it. So long as nuclear weapons exist the likelihood of nuclear war occurring approaches 100% with time. A "small nuclear exchange" ( oxymoron aside) of just the 100 nukes between India and Pakistan would greatly influence the climate. One billion people today are without a reliable food supply. The mass starvation due to nuclear winter and the brushfire wars that would start midst the power vacuum would tear down human civilization. Without cheaply accessible fossil fuels to regain our former glory, humanity will have mist its best chance at leaving Earth and gaining immortality. Humanity will limp along on Earth surface for thousands of years or more before a pandemic or a rock from space administers the coup de grâce.

If humanity needs to point a gun at its own head to keep its hands from killing one another then humanity doesn't have what it takes to survive for more than a few thousand years. Accepting that MAD is necessary is equivalent to accepting that humanity will likely go extinct. That is not an acceptable conclusion, period.

[Anonymous No.6366520]

>>6366512
>After he left, /sci/'s quality significantly improved.

lol
i havent seen anything but tulpas, homework threads, macchu picchu and that autistic wonder kid since 2011

[Anonymous No.6366521]

>>6366512
"quality" of /sci/ was a downward spiral as long as I can remember
Today it's just a bunch of high schoolers asking about every little stupid shit instead of googling it.

[Anonymous No.6366524]

>>6366512
You are good.
10/10
Would fall for troll again.

[Anonymous No.6366527]

>>6366493
Who knew the transhumanists and futurists were our only hope.

[Anonymous No.6366528]

>>6366520
>>6366521
Back in 2011 /sci/ was full of high school retards who didn't even know calculus. Today /sci/ is full of PhDs and PhD students. We have become an academic board.

[Anonymous No.6366536]

>>6366519
>nuclear winter
Didn't even read after that (not seriously anyway). You don't know what you're talking about, read on some literature on the subject, please. And again, no one would do that, there is no point at all.

[Anonymous No.6366539]

>>6366528
I remember significantly more heavy math threads with like, 4x more posters back then. /sci/ was simply more alive back then, and even if you didn't like the pop-sci threads they brought a lot of new people. You know that Space Elevator guy that sometime posts on /pol/? We used to have those kinds of threads here.

Goddamn autists like you with sand in their vagina scared off most of the posters.

[Anonymous No.6366541]

>>6366528
I capped only the first row to spare you the shame

[Anonymous No.6366544]

>>6363460
Because reddit loves to lick this dumb nigger's ass and it'll get instant views.

[Anonymous No.6366546]

>>6366539
>I remember significantly more heavy math threads
You remember wrong. There was no higher math and there were no educated posters two years ago. I'm glad /sci/ has changed.

>pop-sci threads they brought a lot of new people
They brought the retard variety of people we don't need and don't want here. The anti-intellectual "muh transhumanism, muh fantasies" crowd who hate real science because they are too dumb to understand it. The kind of people who shit up this board with stoner philosophy and refuse to see why their drivel has nothing to do with science.

[Anonymous No.6366550]

>>6366528
Absolute bullshit. The signal to noise ratio was much better back then.

[Anonymous No.6366551]

>>6366544

epic, agreed /b/rother

[Anonymous No.6366548]

>>6366536
>read some literature
No one with any expertise in the field ever doubted nuclear winter. The backlash against the theory was due to one dude who wrote some survivalist book that drew incorrect conclusions from some science papers he read and because Carl Sagan incorrectly expected the burning of Iraqi oil fields during the first Gulf War would cause some measure of nuclear winter. The reason it didn't is because the ash needs the extreme heat of a nuclear explosion to make it above the Earth's water cycle. If it does that then it will stay up there for decades. The heat of the burning oil fields was no where near enough and too disperse to punch a hole into the stratosphere.

[Anonymous No.6366552]

>>6366546
>You remember wrong. There was no higher math and there were no educated posters two years ago. I'm glad /sci/ has changed.
I remember well. The ratio of pop-sci to math was higher, but there were definitely more math threads. There was a daily Putnam challenge thread.

>They brought the retard variety of people we don't need and don't want here. The anti-intellectual "muh transhumanism, muh fantasies" crowd who hate real science because they are too dumb to understand it. The kind of people who shit up this board with stoner philosophy and refuse to see why their drivel has nothing to do with science.
Pic related

[Anonymous No.6366557]

>>6366541
What are you trying to say? Not every thread is highest quality. Those are still acceptable though.

[Anonymous No.6366564]

>>6366546
>They brought the retard variety of people we don't need and don't want here.
See >>6366493
/sci/ has 10 pages. The legit science threads could exist alongside the the pop-sci threads. People like you pushed harder against pop-sci posters than you did against actual troll threads, now /sci/ is lucky to get more than 10 posts per hour.

[Anonymous No.6366566]

>>6366557
>/b/ tier thread in plain fucking sight
>acceptable

alrighty

[Anonymous No.6366568]

>>6366550
Only if by "much better" you mean more noise.

>>6366552
I was talking about real math thread, not your autistic Putnam horseplay. You probably don't know any higher math. That's why you have to resort to feeling pseudo-intellectual over being able to solve "more complicated" calculus exercises.

[Anonymous No.6366567]

>>6366557
>/adv/ garbage
>/adv/ garbage
>deep thoughts courtesy of 14 year olds high on pot
>pop philosophy
>NDT spam
>IQ troll and /adv/ spam
>0.999... troll spam

>acceptable
top top top top top lel

[Anonymous No.6366569]

>>6366548
The probability of such a huge decrease in temperature is very low. At best it's gonna stop global warming.

[Anonymous No.6366573]

>>6366568
You really don't come across as an intellectual, just surprisingly bitter and rigid.

[Anonymous No.6366580]

>>6366564
Stop insulting pop sci. Pure escapist fantasy garbage is not even pop sci. Pop sci means having or gaining a layman understanding of science. Fictional role playing is not related to science at all.

[Anonymous No.6366589]

>>6366573
>ad homonym

[Anonymous No.6366592]

>>6366580
Are you meta-arguing? I'm didn't describe what pop-sci is.

[Anonymous No.6366599]

>>6366568
>you mean more noise
No I don't. The post rate was much higher and /sci/ had more shitty threads compared to the present yes but there was still more quality threads. Lots of the shitposters at that time used tripcodes and it was possible to filter most of them. Futurist crap was mostly contained in Mad Scientist's threads.

Plus /sci/ had much better moderation at the time. obvious troll threads were removed and indefatigable trolls banned

[Anonymous No.6366606]

>>6366589
>homonym

[Anonymous No.6366601]

Because Neil does not have the charisma to pull off his own series.

I mean he could, but it would be like "thru the wormhole" or some random documentary nobody would remember or watch in 2 years

Tyson is hoping that "being carl sagan" is the kind of job you apply for

[Anonymous No.6366604]

>>6366589
Pot, kettle, black.

There were more hard science and math threads, there were 5x as many posters, and I didn't get bored within 5 minutes of being on /sci/ (even browsing through the whole catalog) and the experience has been much the same for a couple of other friends. That's just the fact of the matter.

tl;dr deal with it you humorless zero

[Anonymous No.6366605]

>>6366592
I complained about posters of the retard variety. In response you claimed that "pop sci" threads can coexist with academic science threads. Thus you implied the retard threads were "pop sci". Are you autistic? Why are your communication skills impaired?

[Anonymous No.6366619]

>>6366601
>Because Neil does not have the charisma to pull off his own series.

what is NOVA, faggot?

[Anonymous No.6366617]

>>6366569
Volcanoes affect climate and modern megacities burning would have a greater affect than volcanoes. The silicate ash produced by volcanoes are relatively clear compared to the black opaque carbon ash produced by a burning city. The black ash would absorb a lot of sunlight, heating the air around it, and rising therefore keeping itself aloft and above the Earth's water cycle for much longer.

Imagine a "local" nuclear war, like India and Pakistan using their 100 nukes. Imagine the 100 most populace cities in the region being set ablaze, each by itself being more destructive to Earth's climate than any volcanoes we have yet experienced.

Your belief that such a nuclear exchange would not have a significant impact on humanity's already somewhat precarious food situation is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.6366621]

>>6366604
>there were 5x as many posters

More posters aren't worth shit when the majority of them were uneducated fucktards shitting up the board with underaged nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6366630]

>>6366621
>More posters aren't worth shit when the majority of them were uneducated fucktards shitting up the board with underaged nonsense.

As opposed to far less posters where the majority of them are uneducated fucktards shitting up the board with underaged nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6366627]

>>6366605
>My high standards for /sci/ posts excludes pop-sci
>Are you autistic? Why are your communication skills impaired?

[Anonymous No.6366628]

>>6366621
>uneducated fucktards shitting up the board with underaged nonsense
Like 90% of /sci/ today?

[Anonymous No.6366639]

>>6366627
Learn to read, retard. I explicitly said I don't have a problem with pop sci.

>>6366628
>>6366630
Today /sci/ is full of educated shitposters. Be aware of the difference.

[Anonymous No.6366635]

>>6366619

shitty and what he should stick to, that's what it is

This Cosmos will be NOVA part II and in 5 years nobody will watch it, it will butcher the original the same was the Jarjar binks star wars raped IV

[Anonymous No.6366640]

>>6366444
THIS

Tyson haters can't see the big picture. The world is science deprived and Tyson is a small step in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.6366643]

>>6366639
>Today /sci/ is full of educated shitposters. Be aware of the difference.

hahahahahaha
you funny guy
I kill you last

[Anonymous No.6366645]

>>6366639
>High post standards
>Learn to read, retard
My implied accusation of hypocrisy stands.

[Anonymous No.6366646]

>>6366639
>Today /sci/ is full of educated shitposters
>full
So please do tell where all of them are. In your psychotic utopian mind?

[Anonymous No.6366649]

>>6366640

it's just sad he's the best we have

what are his credentials?

Manages a spherical movie theater?

[Anonymous No.6366655]

>>6366617
Everything okay with the fucking food, dude. So third world countries are poor, what a turn. Do we have starvation in even second world countries? No. Will it appear because of Iraqi-Pakistan wars? No basis to think so.
I think we should define what we consider a threat. (Perceptible) threat would be, say, starvation in second world countries in our lifetime, but it surely doesn't seem probable.

[Anonymous No.6366656]

>>6366639
>Today /sci/ is full of educated shitposters. Be aware of the difference.
Everything you value about /sci/ existed in the beginning and in greater quantities. By driving out that which you simply didn't value you have diminished that which you do.

This board was big enough for everyone, but coexistence wasn't good enough for you.

[Anonymous No.6366657]

>>6366493
It's not like it's beyond our reach... all you have to do is make an effort to make more interesting threads and discussions.


... admittedly it'd help if our fucking mods didn't ban half the non-trolling discussions because "lol not /sci/ enough"

[Anonymous No.6366664]

>>6366656
This board was and still is dedicated to science and math. If you are whining over off-topic shitposter being driven away, then you don't belong here either.

[Anonymous No.6366667]

>>6366649
This isn't sports where the best athletes are the most entertaining. Science inherently can't evaluate its own value. The best scientists use everything they have to use science. The big picture is either lost to them or they simply lack the skill to communicate the big picture.

Perhaps the apprehension about Tyson is because people think the people good at communicating like Tyson and Sagan have to be the same people who the media forces into the limelight, like Einstein and Hawking.

[Anonymous No.6366677]

>>6366444
> Tyson isn't inspiring
> strawman gallore
The only reason there aren't more people like Tyson is that blacks take up sports more than the sciences. And, yes, sure, there's a lot of dumb shit that people waste their time on (4chan being the one common among us) and I would shed no tears if celebrity worship died off tomorrow. But that has no bearing on how much Tyson's antics get under my skin - I can't tell if he has some form of bi-polar disorder or if he learned how to speak to an audience by watching the Bill Cosby show.

[Anonymous No.6366676]

>>6366664
>This board was and still is dedicated to science and math
That is beside the point. This board gets barely any activity compared to what it used to. There used to be more of every type of /sci/ thread. By pushing away the periphery of /sci/ posters we have removed a great deal of actual, pure blooded science content.

[Anonymous No.6366683]

>>6366667

not saying he has to be the best but when you read his CV it's basically "he got a degree and worked for a college and manages a planetarium"

at least sagan literally built spaceships

There is just something about Tyson.... Sagan came off like he was just dying to tell people about the world and Tyson comes off like he's reading off a script written by someone else

[Anonymous No.6366691]

>>6366657
I don't know, man. I used to spend hours talking about everything science related under the sun. Now even the busiest threads aren't enough to keep me occupied. No one is here anymore. PhD's don't frequent this board because its fucking 4chan and now even undergraduate science majors don't come here often because /sci/ is a No Fun Zone. I guess I'm jaded.

Say, does anyone have any of those simple text images that said "Don't respond to troll posts or /sci/ will become a troll board" from back in the day?

[Anonymous No.6366693]

>>6366677
The fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.6366698]

>>6366691
>PhD's don't frequent this board

We have a lot of PhDs on /sci/. They just don't want to waste their time with your retarded undergrad homework questions which can be easily googled.

[Anonymous No.6366701]

>>6366683
Both are equally passionate. Tyson is exuberant and Sagan was eloquent, but that is probably because most of Sagan's quotes comes from stuff he wrote for his books whereas most Tyson quotes come from him on stage or on a news specialty piece.

[Anonymous No.6366704]

>>6366691
No but I got this

[Anonymous No.6366706]

>>6366677
Tyson has attractive voice. He tends to "shout" when in front of a living audience, because
a) people love emotional speeches
b) he's been in a ton of live debates where people tend to cut into your speech a lot

Compare him to Dawkins for example. The guy has this small gentle voice and can't produce a solid sentence without stuttering. Last video with him I remember a middle aged woman wouldn't let him talk simply becasue she spoke louder. Only presenter saved his ass when he finally told her to let him talk.

Or Kaku who talks in fucking circles and uses literaly same word for word explanations over and over again.
I could probably dig out 20 of his videos mentioning anthill and highway.

[Anonymous No.6366708]

>>6366701

in Nova and where he is not on stage IMO tyson comes off as incredibly scripted, like whatever he is saying was written by a committee and tried on test audiences

Sagan comes off like he's your bro and just trying to explain something to you in a conversation

[Anonymous No.6366713]

>>6366698
>They just don't want to waste their time with your retarded undergrad homework questions which can be easily googled.
Dude, that isn't even relevant.

>We have a lot of PhDs on /sci/.
We have fewer than we used to. I'll say it again, by pushing away all non-PhD tier threads we have diminished /sci/ in every way. Homework threads, troll threads, and supernatural threads deserved what they got, but the speculative shit belonged here. /sci/ is a 4chan board and as a 4chan board was never going to achieve a high level of discourse. A few people had ridiculously high expectations for /sci/ and by trying to achieve those expectations they all but killed /sci/. It is now one of the slowest boards on 4chan.

Basically the Tyson haters "won" by reducing /sci/ to a postless wasteland.

[Anonymous No.6366716]

>>6366704
Thanks, but damn I wish I had the original.

Do you know what I am referring to though? They would get posted multiple times in every troll thread for the first year of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6366723]

>>6366706
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

[Anonymous No.6366725]

>>6366708
Honestly, I can't defend Tyson against Sagan. It's like a Christian comparing Jesus to God. Sagan was unmatched in his ability simultaneously communicating the substance of science and his passion for it.

[Anonymous No.6366726]

>>6366713
>but the speculative shit belonged here
Fuck off, cancer.

[Anonymous No.6366731]

>>6366713
>Dude, that isn't even relevant.
I'm not a dude and it was very relevant because it explains why you incorrectly assume there are less PhDs on /sci/

>but the speculative shit belonged here
Nope. 4chan is 18+ and /sci/ is about science and math. Deal with it. Underaged fantasy garbage has no place here. And you must be mentally challenged if you honestly believe kindergarten role playing crap would attract more PhDs to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6366734]

>>6366731
>The term "dude" was first used in print in 1876, in Putnam's Magazine, to mock how a woman was dressed

[Anonymous No.6366742]

>>6366725
... I agree with what I think you're trying to say, but you know most Christians think that Jesus /was/ god, right? In my experience as an ex-evangelical, anyway.

[Anonymous No.6366743]

>>6366731
>demands high post quality
>And you must be mentally challenged if you honestly believe...
The irony is staggering.

[Anonymous No.6366751]

>>6366743
What irony? I don't see any. Are you perhaps too autistic to understand the meaning of the word "irony"?

[Anonymous No.6366749]

Putting a /sci/ tab on this domain and complaning about shitposters and trolls is like packing a nice meal for a picnic with your girl, both of you climbing into a sewer (with the knowledge of what a sewer does), sitting down on a rusty ledge with your feet calf deep in floating turds and then constantly complaining that the putrid air and smell and disease touching your body is lessening your ability to have a nice conversation and savor your meal

What did you think was going to happen? You built a science tab in the sewer of the internet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

[Anonymous No.6366752]

>>6366749
>gf

[Anonymous No.6366753]

>>6366725

one more vote for cloning sagan

could they not audition people, even just an actor who could come off as fred rodgers on camera and could explain science up to the college level?

[Anonymous No.6366756]

>>6366742

Jesus was a Bro, God was always itching to kill all the first born children, or demand animal sacrifice, or banish people to walk in the words for decades or flood the earth and kill all humans but one family or rain down fire from the sky on faggots

[Anonymous No.6366761]

>>6366752

ok laptop and a sandwich then

[Anonymous No.6366762]

>>6366742
It was an analogy, not the dead sea scrolls. I couldn't care less what Christians believe is the structure of the holy trinity, nor do I care if they believe the ark was made out of oak or that God is left handed.

[Anonymous No.6366764]

>>6366743
Stop feeding the troll.

[Anonymous No.6366765]

>>6366751
Oh, I get it. You got me. 10/10. Would rage again.

[Anonymous No.6366767]

Gentlemen, please - this arguing solves nothing.

I have a challenge to all of you. If you truly believe that /sci/ is worth saving:

Start five quality threads. Five a day, every day. It doesn't have to be something lifechanging - an interesting science news article, a thoughtful inquiry, a fun hypothetical, just something to get people talking that isn't troll science or homework threads.

If every poster in this thread made an effort to start five quality threads every day - the quality of /sci/ would noticeably improve within a week. Within a month? You'd hardly recognize the place.


There is nothing preventing /sci/ from being as great or greater than it was except for a lack of will. Go out and make it a better board.

[Anonymous No.6366769]

>>6366767
A good OP should also contribute quality posts to keep a quality thread going. Doing that five times a day would be like a part time job. The most I could muster is one thread every day.

[Anonymous No.6366774]

>>6366731
I'm starting my PhD program next Fall.

/sci/ pulling the stick out of its ass and maybe even having a little fun again would be enough to convince me to stay. But this current attitude of shooting down any pop-sci threads or raging at genuinely curious visitors wandering in from other boards and the general "better than thou" attitude a lot of /sci/ posters have developed has made me visit less and less.

Boards thrive on dialogue and content and your kind of attitude has driven away a great deal of /sci/'s contributors and content creators over the years. That needs to change.

[Anonymous No.6366776]

>>6366767
>There is nothing preventing /sci/ from being as great or greater than it was except for a lack of will.

you know who had the strength of will to triumph?

[Anonymous No.6366780]

>>6366749

:/

[Anonymous No.6366791]

>>6366774
I agree. I just can't understand the pop-sci haters. Do they really prefer 20 posts per hour with one quality post over 200 posts per hour with 10 quality posts? The hate is like cutting the nose off to spite the face.

[Anonymous No.6366794]

>>6366767
/sci/ is fine the way it is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, /sci/ is not a "science discussion board", it's more of a "hangout for people who happen to be passionate about science and math".

If you've ever hung out in a crowd like that you'll know that real science discussions are inevitable, but it's not formal.

As long as the majority of the board is pretty intelligent I think it's fine. Although sometimes I think we are in danger of that no longer being so

[Anonymous No.6366800]

>>6366749

penis

[Anonymous No.6366803]

>>6366794
>/sci/ is fine the way it is
>~10 posts an hour unless there's an active discussion about how shit the board is

[Anonymous No.6366807]

>>6366794
I talk about space elevators, the economic implications of the singularity, transhumanism, and shit like that with my physics and engineering friends.

[Anonymous No.6366809]

>>6366807
ya, and we talk about those things on /sci/ too

I'm just saying it's a very different atmosphere from any other science forum you're likely to find, and that's what I like about it.

[Anonymous No.6366822]

>>6366809
>I'm just saying it's a very different atmosphere from any other science forum you're likely to find
... in that it's a near-vacuum?

Traffic on /sci/ has plummeted over the last couple years.

[Anonymous No.6366843]

>>6366809
Speculative threads like those have received a lot of flak on /sci/ over the years and now they are almost nonexistent. That, more than anything else, is what killed /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6366860]

>>6366807
Your peer group of socially awkward middle schoolers does not qualify as "physics and engineering" people.

[Anonymous No.6366879]

>>6366843
Go away, cancer. /sci/ is for science and math.

[Anonymous No.6366881]

>>6366774
If your phd is not in science or maths your words aint nothing.

[Anonymous No.6366884]

>>6366881
Physics. What's yours in?

[Anonymous No.6366893]

>>6366884
Physics. Specialty?

[Anonymous No.6366900]

>>6366893
Plasma

[Anonymous No.6366914]

>>6366900
Dull. QFT. Although I am only first year undergrad.
Am I the only one who gets the impression plasma's relatively popular specialisation among today's youth? Is there really a lot we don't know about ionised gas?

[Anonymous No.6366978]

>>6366914
>first year undergrad
>has the fucking gall to lecture everyone on what the board should or should not be and mock PhD candidates for their specializations
And you people fucking wonder why most of the good contributors left and why /sci/ is little more than homework threads and spergs stroking each other's egos.

[Anonymous No.6367010]

>>6366914
I took a course at the end of my undergrad. It's a big field in astrophysics and has applications in ion propulsion. There is a lot to learn within the field too if you thought that there wasn't enough to specialize in.

And I agree with >>6366978

You should lighten up.

[Anonymous No.6367049]

euphoric/10

[Anonymous No.6367051]

The only good scientific shows are on PBS.

[Anonymous No.6367178]

>>6366479
Funniest thing I have seen on /sci/ ever, and funnier than anything on many other boards.

How much of /sci/ goes on /stem/ on OPchan?

[Anonymous No.6367308]

>>6363460
Because liking science and educating people isn't bad just because you call it euphoric.

[Anonymous No.6367342]

>>6366706
> Tyson has attractive voice
if you work at a lumber mill all day. Otherwise, it's just another voice.
> a) people love emotional speeches
Must be a Clapistan thing, to judge a scientific presentation on its emotional delivery. Astrophysics isn't feminism.

> b) he's been in a ton of live debates where people tend to cut into your speech a lot
"They did it first" is never a good excuse for bad behavior, and he shouts even when he's the only person on stage talking to an audience of mutes.

As for the other guys:
- Cosmos isn't a debate
- Tyson stutters and repeats himself all the fucking time, like the vast majority of scientists who dabble in the realm of public speaking
- Kaku is a string theorist and a joke, and I probably shouldn't have repeated myself there

I dislike Tyson's style and delivery and everytime he starts shouting I want to punch the ghetto out of his chubby little face.

[Anonymous No.6367400]

>>6367342
So edgy.

[Anonymous No.6367403]

Nice one, /sci/. Right on the ball. This thread may seem like bickering at first, but in reality you nailed the point. Which is how to bring science to the masses.

Yes, it's a huge challenge, but not impossible, as some elitists here will say (hurr durr most people aren't smart enough to understand science, unlike us, the glorious geniuses!).

When I say huge challenge, I mean all the points that were raised in the thread so far are valid. How to introduce the average Joe to science, but in a way he doesn't get bored? On the other hand, how to stop him from hopping on the Kaku train? Or live by half-assed explanations or taking thought experiments as facts and arguments...?

Again, doable but not necessarily impossible. I'm glad the wheels are in motion, one way or another. As long as it pulls a few people away from reality shows, it's a success.

My bigger concern about science atm is dimwits browsing the web all day long and exclaiming I F*ING LOVE SCIENCE when they see something like gif related, before returning to their dull lives.

[Anonymous No.6367538]

>>6363492
heheheh

[Anonymous No.6367937]

>>6367342
Tyson has mass appeal. He gave a presentation at my university last year and it was standing room only in an auditorium designed to seat more than 2000 people. We had a noticeable rise in attendance to physics and astronomy outreach events after that and many newcomers turned into regulars.

Science's biggest obstacle the last decade or two has been its self imposed isolation. Fewer and fewer researchers get involved with their communities or make any effort to interact with the general public. And more and more students are coming into science with the mindset that the public is somehow 'beneath' them.

Outreach and popularization of science should be encouraged, not condemned.

[Anonymous No.6368013]

>>6366978
>has the fucking gall to lecture everyone on what the board should or should not be
You probably confuse me with some others, I think our first goal is to get rid of trolls, although it is true, that in order to get knowledge you desire you just need to make illiterate confident arrogant statements, otherwise your thread will simply die with 2 posts.
>mock PhD candidates for their specializations
This is exactly your problem, pop-sciers. You are simply too stupid (autistic?) to understand obvious irony. Do you honestly think majority of users seriously says "niggers < man" or criticize something they are clearly have no knowledge to? Of course not, it's just part of the game and it yields fruit in a form of (subtextual) intellectual discussion. No one likes to waste their time on knowingly illiterate people, who say "i just dont know anything, but i think its actually this way and i cant find info/understand why not". But pretentiously confront them and you will get everything you need, often enough with other users joining in discussion and references, for people love to contradict and prove superiority.

[Anonymous No.6368033]

>>6368013
>Jokes on you /sci/ - I only *pretend* to be an obnoxious, pretentious little prick!

[Anonymous No.6368040]

>>6368033
>implying it's not obvious
>implying it's not the only way we are left with

[Anonymous No.6368372]

>>6368013
Holy fuck, you have accused people of autism a dozen times in this thread.

[Anonymous No.6368456]

>>6368372
Another one. That was my second post itt.

[Anonymous No.6368539]

I think the new Cosmos is gonna be a lot of fun and I think /sci/ needs to stop taking itself so goddamned seriously.

[Anonymous No.6368585]

GET

FUCKING

HYPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb5tdqplTqQ

[Anonymous No.6368679]

>>6368585
>dont want to get hype... but still kinda hype

[Anonymous No.6369831]

>>6367342
>Kaku is a string theorist

And what's wrong with string theory? Is it 2mathy4u?

[Anonymous No.6369855]

>>6363460
>why is this allowed?
A well spoken and generally well thought of spokesperson in the relaunch of a franchise long defunct that promoted basic awareness of current scientific cosmological models as opposed to alagorical myths about gods?
Why is this allowed?
We must put a stop to this at once!!!
It might lead to unrest among the peasantry!

Gee the same guy that Fox News gets to litteraly reassure their viewers that the Northern Lights will not scour the earth of life is going to give a dumbed down version of his Intro for Non-Majors lectures, on commercial television.

Carl Sagan's memories are being honored. Oh no. Time to up the dosage in the public water supply, we must stop this.

Such television belongs on public channels, with classic Doctor Who reruns, not with the new session of Family Guy!

Don't worry, OP, it is not being allowed.
I'm sure someone will get right on it.

[Anonymous No.6369880]

>>6363460
Stop being a fucking Sagan purist. Science education is in shambles in the USA. Anything to promote interest in science is welcome.

I mean, it's not like Tyson isn't a bad pick or anything. I'm sure the series will be a success.

[Anonymous No.6370554]

People will not prefer Tyson over Sagan because people have a natural tendency to prefer the original over the remake. Tyson will undoubtedly be remembered like Sagan but for now he stands in the light of one of the greats that inspired him to remake the cosmos.

In the end, who gives a shit?
He's promoting science literacy. America's education system is already in the shitter so this is far better than the alternative bullshit reality tv shows.

Also, if /sci/ was a dick stroking contest as seen in >>6366479 then I like the new /sci/. If you don't like opinions on a discussion board then get the fuck off internet. Why can't people voice what they think is bullshit? Because you don't like it? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6370588]

>>6370554
It has nothing to do with dick stroking or rejecting opinions.

/sci/ then was a lot more open to discussions, a lot more welcoming of new posters, and a lot less cynical and didn't act so smug and superior.

There's a reason traffic on /sci/ has plummeted the last couple years.

[Anonymous No.6370594]

>>6363460
>why is this allowed?
What's your problem? Are you from /pol/ or something, and don't like black people? Or are you objecting to another version of the classic series? Regardless, in a world that is becoming increasingly low in IQ, superstitious, ignorant, and sometimes downright hostile towards science in general, we NEED something that brings the sciences back into the mainstream and accessible to the average person in order to combat these problems. Or would you rather that the world keep getting dumber and dumber?

[Anonymous No.6370633]

>>6363460
I think they picked a good guy for the job. Plus, I'm sure they'll bring on tons of other scientists to cohost! I'm stoked about it though. I hope it gets tons of viewers; something to rival the fucking skull numbingly stupid shit they air on TV today.. i.e. Meet the Kardashians, pretty much anything on E, you get the point..

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.6370646]

>>6363460
in this world it is bad that there is no science and sadly we do not live in perfect quantum soul harmony like the spirits so in my mind to make this tv show is a good step even if it becomes of the popsci category it will still be helping the future of the world into self-realising hehehe

[Anonymous No.6372701]

>>6370588
>There's a reason traffic on /sci/ has plummeted the last couple years.

One of these reasons is right here: >>6370646. This tripfag is mainly responsible for /sci/'s downfall.

[Anonymous No.6373332]

>>6372701
I don't know who that tripfag is, but I believe there are bigger reasons.

[Anonymous No.6374949]

>>6373332
What do you believe are the reasons?

[Anonymous No.6374974]

>>6374949
nice necro dude

[Anonymous No.6374981]

>>6374949
you

[Anonymous No.6374985]

>>6374981
Me? What did I do? I'm just an innocent girl who wants to learn about science and math.

[Anonymous No.6374987]

You know what's bullshit? People who like something, then when many people start liking that thing, the person suddenly hates the thing and everyone else who likes it. Get over yourselves, you fucking hipsters. Science is starting to become popular, and science obsession is starting to become socially acceptable.

Who gives a fuck if somebody doesn't understand how many niggatrons is in a faggometer? Or how many cockabytes you faggots suck every single minute of the day(which is millions, by the way.) Be glad people are taking an interest in science. It's going to inspire more people to become scientists, then we'll be able to advance as a civilization.

Or you can continue to be hipster faggots and fling shit at everybody, then enjoy dying alone when you realize there's nobody left that shares your stupid interests or wants to put up with your constant bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6374995]

>>6374985
please go away

[Anonymous No.6374997]

>>6374995
Why do you hate me? What did I ever do to you?

[Anonymous No.6375006]

>>6374997
you are mentally ill

they need to put you on meds.

[Anonymous No.6375014]

>>6375006
Are you a professional psychiatrist? What mental illness do I have?

[Anonymous No.6375032]

>>6374987

>Who gives a fuck if somebody doesn't understand how many niggatrons is in a faggometer? Or how many cockabytes you faggots suck every single minute of the day(which is millions, by the way.)

[Anonymous No.6376072]

>>6374987
>Or you can continue to be hipster faggots

I'll choose this option.

[Anonymous No.6376085]

>>6363476
>defending singularity
stopped right there.

[Anonymous No.6376150]

>>6363460
I don't know why people hate him so much on this board? I remember watching the Pluto Files on PBS with him years ago. I thought he was a fun and entertaining television host. If he can bring interest to youth and the general public, what's the harm?

[Anonymous No.6376157]

>>6374987
Good thing I'm in mathematics, because most people are objectively way too lazy and stupid to learn this shit.

Whereas science has many babby areas where retards can excel.

[Anonymous No.6376386]

>>6376150
Because just every other board, a subset of posters exists on /sci/ who, for whatever reason, simply hate fun things.

Or at least a subset of /sci/ posters

[Anonymous No.6376388]

>>6376386
*just like

[Anonymous No.6376404]

>>6366723
Star worshiping dribble by some wacked out witchdoctor from the deepest reaches of Africa.

[Anonymous No.6376407]

>>6366229
I'm not, its so retarded and tryhard.

The starship of the imagination was a godamn dandelion seed that Sagan let loose into the wind by the shore and we set sail into the farthest depths of space.

What significance is this thing?

[Anonymous No.6376581]

>>6366767
I made Space Thread

[Anonymous No.6376598]

Neil DeShitstain Tysocumguzzler is a scientist like Dick Cheney is a rocket surgeon.

He is so fucked in the head that he thinks a hypothesis is a theory.

[Anonymous No.6376615]

>>6376598
>rocket surgeon

[Anonymous No.6376650]

>>6376615
Yes. Imagine someone that jumps on an injured rocket and fixes it before it explodes. A rocket surgeon.

Dick Cheney is NOT a rocket surgeon.

[matsci !!invJra9x72G No.6376682]

>>6363476

My God, that comic is perfect. Just needs the "Internet IQ Olympics"

>>6363460

I'd be really interested in a series on electronic materials/solid state physics. I could do that, although it wouldn't appeal to a mass audience, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.6376704]

>>6376682
its kind of disturbing how perfect it still is and yet its 3 years old.

[Anonymous No.6376886]

>>6366749
#REKT

[Anonymous No.6376896]

>>6366914
> Is there really a lot we don't know about ionised gas?

humans know nothing.

that's the point of fucking science. Are you so ignorant and arrogant to even being to think humans can amass all the knowledge on a particular subject??

do fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6377314]

>>6376896
>humans know nothing.

Why do philosophers always repeat their "cannot know nuffin" mantra even though science has proved them wrong so many times?

[Anonymous No.6377318]

>>6377314
>Why do philosophers always repeat their "cannot know nuffin" mantra
They don't. Study some post-Heideggerian philosophy and you'll see that cartesian doubt has been all but abandoned by contemporary philosophy. "can't know nuffin" is just something autists who only took an intro to phil course chant when they're trying to set up a straw man so they can call philosophy stupid.

[Anonymous No.6377320]

>>6377318
>"can't know nuffin" is just something autists who only took an intro to phil course chant when they're trying to set up a straw man so they can call philosophy stupid.

I guess this was Feyerabend's intention when he went full creationist.

[Anonymous No.6377327]

>>6377320
Obviously you didn't understand what he wrote at all.

[Anonymous No.6378996]

>>6377327
He said all fairy tales have the same validity as scientific theories. Obvious nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6379180]

>>6378996
Thank you for confirming what was written in >>6377327

[Anonymous No.6379665]

>>6379180
Why don't you show me where I'm wrong?

[Anonymous No.6380123]

>>6376407
It's a winged seed that Neil DeGrasse Lando will probably let loose in the first episode.

[Anonymous No.6380148]

>>6367342

I read his book and it was good. Watched him on stage wih kraus, nye, and others and he was the worst.

Hoping for the best with cosmos. hope seth keeps it on track.

[Anonymous No.6381323]

>>6380148
>worse than krauss

How the fuck is this possible?

[Anonymous No.6381330]

>>6380123

he is indeed a lando hapsi isnt he?

[Anonymous No.6381564]

>>6366444
Im with you buddy

[Anonymous No.6383015]

>>6366749
Why do people believe 4chan is "the sewer of the internet"? Most of the time 4chan is just a discussion forum like any other place on the internet. Don't fall for the bad reputation some kids from silly meme sites are spreading just because they were offended by seeing gore on /b/.

[Anonymous No.6383091]

>>6383015
People come here, post something stupid, and get flamed. This experience forever colors their perception of us as a grotesque and amoral monsters hiding in the shadow of the wholesome internet.

[Anonymous No.6384556]

>>6383091
Often people get flamed for no reason whatsoever. /sci/ even flames people for giving correct answers.

[Anonymous No.6384568]

>>6363460

[Anonymous No.6384570]

>>6384568

[Anonymous No.6384742]

>>6363495
>this is just capitalizing on
>I'll watch it though

Stopped reading the thread right here. You guys are hopeless. You identify the problem yet you will still take the bait, then you will complain as if it wasn't your own fault that you got baited into watching. Mike Tyson once said "we as a species are too stupid to solve the great mysteries of the universe".

[Anonymous No.6384772]

>>6366519
>he thinks immortality is possible
>he thinks humans will ever leave the solar system

[Anonymous No.6386202]

Let me get this straight. Most of /sci/ doesn't hate Tyson himself. What we hate are his followers who only watch the show to become more pretentious and who mistakenly believe this is all science is about.

[Anonymous No.6386515]

I thought Morgan Freeman was going to narrate this.

[Anonymous No.6386525]

>>6386515
I would prefer if Morgan Freeman were to narrate it even if Neil Tyson is a pop science icon to most people. His voice isn't as beautiful and soothing as Sagan.
Morgan Freeman was born to narrate. Muh nigga.

[Anonymous No.6387328]

>>6386515
>His voice isn't as beautiful and soothing as Sagan.
Indeed, Sagan's voice and way of talking was incredibly soothing... I loved hearing him.

[Anonymous No.6387570]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGn19OM_nA

[Anonymous No.6388047]

>>6387328

He sounded like Kermit the Frog. I think Tyson is our best hope for creating a science-literate society, but there's no way he'll successfully or un-ironically recreate Sagan's glorious 70's psychedelic non sequiturs i. e. 'this tree and I'.

[Anonymous No.6388070]

>>6388047
PFFT!

Good education and killing off the idiots that abuse education to promote a political agenda is the only way to turn us into a science literate society.

Allowing Creationism in schools, you SHOULD be ashamed of your cowardice.

I guarantee that a BAD entertainer like Tyson will not accomplish it, and expecting him to be your savior is the most nihilistic AND retarded thing I've ever heard, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking it.

[Anonymous No.6388661]

I used to think I disliked Tyson but it turned out I just hated the scriptwriters/editors of Nova. I've listened to his speeches and debates and he's a champion autist for science. He has a very good grasp of analogies, a palpable passion for the topics he engages in, and a quick wit.

9/10

[Anonymous No.6388767]

>>6388070

>allowing creationism in schools

When did I say I wanted that, you hyperbolic asshole? I agree with you (under a certain interpretation of the phrase 'killing off' which I'm sure you don't mean that the way it sounds on the surface) but there's nothing wrong with having a likeable, charismatic figure to get people interested in science. It's an entry-level tactic. You have someone interesting and likeable to promote science and reason, then people will investigate it for themselves. Even those who don't choose to go into science will be enriched by a deeper understanding of our amazing universe.

[Anonymous No.6388806]

>>6388047
>He sounded like Kermit the Frog.
You sound like Kermit the Frog.

[Anonymous No.6389139]

>>6388806

>thinking I intended that as a negative

[Anonymous No.6390837]

>>6388661
>He has a very good grasp of analogies

Did you not watch the youtube video where he got #rekt by a 9 year old?

[Anonymous No.6390843]

>>6390837

>#rekt by a 9 year old

[Anonymous No.6390851]

I'm gonna blaze up and watch it.
Planet earth tier visuals man. There may not be any new information to me, but it isn't professional sports

[Anonymous No.6390887]

>>6390837
YES, i'm sure he got wrecked by a 9 year old

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with /sci/, most of you behave like those secret clubs where only the "chosen" can learn science and those chosen people are the biggest bitter autists on earth

[Anonymous No.6390903]

Cosmos was good because Sagan was an excellent writer with a charming character. He had humanistic breadth that allowed him to appeal to human wonder directly. He didn't have to rely on simplified cool science facts to generate interest.

[Anonymous No.6391771]

>>6390887
That "secret club" is called "academia" and there's a reason why it usually takes 5 years of studying until you gain an MSc degree.

[Anonymous No.6391775]

>>6390851
>There may not be any new information to me, but it isn't professional sports

I love you.

[Anonymous No.6392790]

>>6391775
>disliking professional sports

how anti-intellectual

[Anonymous No.6394177]

I missed it. Anybody got a link t a stream?

[Anonymous No.6394210]

>>6390903

I lost all respect for Carl Sagan when i came to know he was a pothead.

[Anonymous No.6394214]

>>6394210
Even though I don't really think pot smoking is a good thing, is it really enough to make you lose all respect for Sagan? Surely, he is likely more prominent than you, so who are you to judge?

[Anonymous No.6394248]

>>6394210
letting moral panic inform your choices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

[Anonymous No.6394324]

>>6394214
>>6394248

Anybody who does illegal drugs is not on his right mind about things, or simply fucking stupid. It's especially immoral for person like Sagan to encourage drug use by aspiring youths. Nothing Sagan did could redeem him from that.

[Anonymous No.6394331]

>>6394324
lol you must be so much fun at parties, go x up your wrists and cry to /mu/ about it

[Anonymous No.6394411]

>>6394331

I don't know where drug use is common at parties - tell me so i can avoid going there - but not here. We can enjoy ourselves without turning to junkies or having them around.

[Anonymous No.6394418]

>>6394331

I don't know where drug use is common at parties - tell me so i can avoid going there - but not here. We can enjoy ourselves without turning into junkies or having them around.

[Anonymous No.6394421]

>>6394418

stay in church

[Anonymous No.6394422]

>>6394421

What does religion have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.6394448]

>>6394422
It's the only place outside of a KKK meeting you are going to be able to surround yourself with people as unintelligent and closed-minded as you.