Cosmos series

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 10:11:57 AM UTC-6, Brian Tung wrote:
Quadibloc (John Savard) wrote:

Biased politics are bad, but scientific truth is always good, even when
sinister forces have tried to create a phony controversy around it.

Very cleverly and ambiguously put, sir. :-)

Actually, though, although I could explicitly define what I think of as scientific truth, versus biased politics, there is another factor I didn't note.

Even when I agree that something is "scientific truth", that doesn't mean it needs to be presented in a preachy, confrontational, or dogmatic manner.

If Creationists or oil companies are complaining, then even if we do not concede their complaints any validity, there remains the problem that the program isn't going to change the minds of any of the people whose minds are already made up.

Now, of course, you can ask how that is a flaw, since by definition nothing will. But here is where I explain what I advocate.

One of the things those sinister forces might like to see is for the presentation of science in whatever medium to practice self-censorship and neuter itself by avoiding presenting whatever science may tell us that contradicts their favored notions. While this must not be surrendered to in full, you convince more people when you educate than when you attempt to indoctrinate.

So developing the scientific attitude of mind, and then presenting the facts, makes the conclusions obvious to the viewer - whereas presenting the conclusions first allows those who are not inclined to agree with them to tune you out.

Subtlety in propaganda seems to be an underrated virtue.

John Savard

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:00:39 PM UTC+1, AM wrote:
On 5/5/2014 10:25 PM, Uncarollo2 wrote:



Having watched all episodes up to now of the Cosmos series, it is interesting how well Tyson can explain complex concepts in layman terms. He is also treading on dangerous territory.



Last night's episode was quite interesting, tying the quest for the age of the universe to the battle over lead in the environment. It was interesting because he definitely portrayed the scientist as the good guy against the moneyed interests who would be hurt by a ban of lead in gasoline, paint and a myriad of other products.



He also pointed out that the present battle over climate change and CO2 in the atmosphere has parallels with the lead battles of the past.



On top of that, he has produced consternation with his billion year old earth and evolution - all topics touched on in last night's episode. Where will it all end??



Uncadoodles







I've not watched all the episodes yet (recorded them) but I have the

exact same feeling as you.



I wish there would be just the science and the not so thinly veiled (to

me) other ideas that the arises in his speaking.

I watched an episode and I can't believe anyone in their right mind would fall for that empiricist junk propaganda -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCG19K-AN8

Readers here in this forum have been exposed over a long period to the actual issues which surrounded the emergence of the motions of the Earth against a backdrop of astronomy which is based on predictions of astronomical events and whether the two mesh comfortably. The dunce can comfort themselves that the Church required an Earth centered universe however the courageous can look at the many topics which have intellectual heft and most of which have never been resolved,at least up to now.

The central issue of the Galileo affair was Galileo's attempt to make a very powerful political figure of the Pope look like a simpleton thereby betraying discussion the Pope had with Galileo on the technical difficulties of reconciling predictive astronomy with proof of the Earth's motions and very few venture into this arena -

"When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

There is a huge clash between the original reference system for the Earth's orbital motion which used the annual apparent motion of the stars behind the Sun as opposed to the reference system which was used at the time of Copernicus which factored the motion of the Sun through the zodiacal signs.

Even with 21st century graphics to split observations into apparent motions and their respective causes it is still an intricate affair yet none of you appear to be capable of handling issues which were valid topics of discussion when Copernicus outlined his scheme -

http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm

This Cosmos thing is both anti-faith propaganda and indoctrinating empiricism with no Church around to promote anything close to the actual historical and technical details of discovery.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 11:00:41 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

I watched an episode and I can't believe anyone in their right mind would fall
for that empiricist junk propaganda -

The truth is what people in their right minds accept. You are the one who is not in his right mind; it is not that the whole world is wrong, and you right.

John Savard