From: Tom Wolper <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Cosmos II: Evolution Boogaloo
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: I'll always be a fan of Tyson's but I'm not getting the intent of this series beyond hoping viewers will say, "Hey, look at that." Watching episode 2 has given me less hope than the 1st installment. > > >I can sum up my issue with the show in three words: Lack of evidence. > ><SNIP> > > >Instead of hopping into the Mystery Machine or whatever Tyson calls the >silvery doo-dad he flies around in, why not get into detail about who charted >DNA and when and where and how it serves a practical purpose in our lives? >Instead of droning on about what the producers think bacteria and worms could >see, would it have been so bad to include some evidence or documentation? >Yeah, I know, facts are boring and evidence is boring. But Tyson rails on >every talk show (including his own) that facts and evidence are crucial to >science, but for two hours his TV series has lacked them. > > >Instead of a CG Greco-Roman museum, when discussing massive volcanos in >Siberia, why isn't Tyson shown in Siberia pointing to physical evidence to >support the claim of the "apocalypse"? > > >I don't have anything positive to say about the life-under-Titan segment. > I came away from the second episode with the opposite reaction: I thought it was much better than the first episode. I don't know how much of the mechanics of evolution the average viewer is supposed to know, and we have to take into account that the target audience isn't necessarily American. <SNIP> Understanding some of the abstract concepts in the books was difficult. I had to find a few popular science books like A Cartoon Guide to Genetics to figure some of it out. I thought the makers of Cosmos did an excellent job of presenting the abstract concepts in an understandable way. I agree that they could have made some improvements but I don't think they were needed to get the core concepts across. And when the French scientist said that science was no longer taking Darwin seriously, I think he was referring to the punctuated equilibrium dispute. That dispute was about the mechanics and timing of evolutionary change but its proponents never challenged natural selection or the core concepts of evolution. ---- My sense is that the case the producers are trying to make (at least early on) is for the wonder in science, rather than proving science all over again. They also seem to be explaining the theories rather than focusing on the evidence that supports them. Tom's experience suggests that many people could benefit from the former as much as the latter. While I've not seen the 1980 edition of COSMOS, this one has some of the same production and writing staff. My understanding is that Kevin would find many of the same disappointments in the 1980 edition as he does in this one, starting with the spaceship. Episode 2 had a 10 percent drop in ratings, but that's just for the Sunday night FOX airing. The global rollout is taking its time as well, the UK broadcast episode 1 over the weekend. David -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
