Cosmos, Possible Worlds Series on Fox Network

[Res Ipsa]

Has anyone else here besides me been watching this series by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? If not, give it a try. I love it! It rivals some of the best science series on PBS like Nova and Nature in quality and educational value. Not everything on Fox Network is bad! They have had a few fairly decent drama and sitcom series too, and even their news division sometimes rises to the occasion and truthfully presents even news and comments that are unfavorable or embarrassing to Trump and his administration.

Fox News and Fox Entertainment seem to exist on different planets. I love Fox sports coverage, and yes, the channel has pumped out some great shows.

I actually think Fox News (if you ignore the prime time lineup) might be starting to come around. When Trump bashes them like the tyrant he is, you've got to think Fox is saying something true.

But anyway, thanks for the tip! Cosmos was excellent. I loved the first... season, I guess?

If I recall correctly, Fox News and Fox Entertainment are owned by different companies.

[DrW]

I would like to see Dr W's ideas on this.

So would I.

We have watched a few episodes. The program is not on our must-watch list as are the PBS offerings (Nova, Nature and occasionally Frontline*).

To me, Cosmos Possible Worlds has too much of a "wonders of science" feel and seems to be meant more as entertainment than education. From a science point of view, content is often overly speculative, under-written and over-produced. While I have a lot of respect for Neil DeGrasse Tyson as a communicator in the service of science, the Fox offering is not up to the standard of Carl Sagan's original Cosmos.

On the positive side, my wife feels that it's intended mainly to engage young people who may not otherwise be interested in science, and I certainly can't argue with that as an objective.
________________

*Frontline's Plastics Wars, for example, is an outstanding science and the environment documentary production by PBS, and one I would hope that folks watch and consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dk3NOEgX7o

[Gunnar]

We have watched a few episodes. The program is not on our must-watch list as are the PBS offerings (Nova, Nature and occasionally Frontline*).

I am a bit surprised that you wouldn't have had a higher opinion of the series than that, but I have no doubt that you are far better qualified to judge the worth of a science based series than I. I certainly agree with you about the PBS offerings you mentioned (especially Nova and Nature). They are my favorite PBS series.

To me, Cosmos Possible Worlds has too much of a "wonders of science" feel and seems to be meant more as entertainment than education. From a science point of view, content is often overly speculative, under-written and over-produced. While I have a lot of respect for Neil DeGrass Tyson as a communicator in the service of science, the Fox offering is not up to the standard of Carl Sagan's original Cosmos.

Maybe I am a bit naïve, but I have long been fascinated by the "wonders of science", and I enjoyed Tyson's pointing them out. And I certainly have no objection to presenting education in an entertaining way. Maybe the entertainment aspect of this series was over emphasized, but I do think there was some real education to be had from watching these episodes. Do you disagree? Did he, in your opinion, present anything that was demonstrably false, misleading or implausible scientifically, according to the current state of scientific knowledge?

On the positive side, my wife feels that it's intended mainly to engage young people not otherwise interested in science, and I certainly can't argue with that as an objective.

And not just for young people. I think most peoples' understanding and appreciation of science would be enhanced by watching this series, though people with as advanced scientific education and training as you have will probably not learn much new to them from it.[/quote]
________________

*Frontline's Plastics Wars, for example, is an outstanding science and the environment documentary production by PBS, and one I would hope that folks watch and consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dk3NOEgX7o

Thanks for that tip: I will certainly watch that! Episode 13 of the Possible Worlds series also discussed that environmental problem and others and the bioremediation techniques and research efforts to mitigate them.

[Gunnar]

*Frontline's Plastics Wars, for example, is an outstanding science and the environment documentary production by PBS, and one I would hope that folks watch and consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dk3NOEgX7o

Watched it! I agree everyone should watch it and carefully consider it. Resolving these issues is only going to get more and more important, except, of course, to aging, selfish conservative politicians and industrialists who figure they will already be dead before they become irreversible existential crises, and therefore excuse their inaction, because they figure they are not personally endangered by them.

[DrW]

*Frontline's Plastics Wars, for example, is an outstanding science and the environment documentary production by PBS, and one I would hope that folks watch and consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dk3NOEgX7o

Watched it! I agree everyone should watch it and carefully consider it. Resolving these issues is only going to get more and more important, except, of course, to aging, selfish conservative politicians and industrialists who figure they will already be dead before they become irreversible existential crises, and therefore excuse their inaction, because they figure they are not personally endangered by them.

Glad that you watched the Plastic Wars documentary. The reaction you described to seeing the reality of the situation regarding single use plastic waste was similar to mine. Being on the senior end of the age spectrum, I will admit to thinking about the fact that the worst case outcomes of uncontrolled plastic waste in the environment, should they be realized, will come to pass after I'm gone. Those kinds of thoughts are of little comfort, and don't last for long when also thinking about my kids and grandkids.

Of all the non-metal trash that we generate, plastics are the most valuable, by a lot. Being made from fossil carbon (crude oil or natural gas), plastics have much more chemical energy per pound than biomass. If not recyclable because of composition of contamination, waste plastic can be cleanly converted to fuel gas and used to fire boilers to create steam for turbines generating electrical power.

While biomass naturally decomposes in the environment, especially in landfills, to form greenhouse gasses (mainly carbon dioxide and methane), plastics do not. Their persistence in the environment is one reason they are such a threat. These are among the reasons why plastics need to be handled differently than biomass during recycling or final disposal.

The good news is that some waste plastics can simply be cleaned, gently melted, and reformed into pellets for re-use. (Three such cycles are normally the limit here before the polymer degrades, however, and must be discarded.)

Most plastics that cannot be simply recycled in this way can be converted into an oil that can be refined to produce hydrocarbon fuels, mainly diesel. Because most plastics are pure hydrocarbons, and virtually none contain sulfur in their molecular structure, these distillate fuels easily meet the ultra-low sulfur standards for diesel that came into effect internationally in early 2020.

The point here is that, scientifically and technically, the problems of fugitive plastics can be addressed in a way that is economically and environmentally sustainable. That is, a workable solution from science to the plastics problem, so professionally illustrated by Frontline, is in hand. What's required now, (just as in the case of Covid19) are public education and political will.

This is but one example of how the approach of well researched and produced documentaries, such as the one mentioned above on Frontline, are of more interest (to me, at least) than flying around the universe in a fanciful 'ship of the imagination' to a script written for mainly for entertainment value.
_____________________________________

Among the few episodes of Cosmos Future Worlds that I have watched, there have been no scientific inaccuracies that I'm aware of. Another positive about the series is the time spent by DeGrasse Tyson explaining some of the history and personalities behind scientific discovery.

[subgenius]

Glad you guys have found it in your heart to give sex offender Neil another shot.

[Chap]

sex offender Neil

Let's treat deGrasse Tyson the way subgenius treats ... oooh, let's say Trump, or that guy Kavanaugh.

Has deGrasse Tyson actually been found guilty in court of any sexual offences? Nope.

Has deGrasse Tyson been charged with any sexual offence? Nope.

So why isn't subgenius giving deGrasse Tyson his usual 'innocent till proven guilty' treatment? Search me. I mean, subgenius is well know for his strict ethical consistency, isn't he?

[DrW]

Glad you guys have found it in your heart to give sex offender Neil another shot.

Even the most willfully ignorant, passive aggressive science denier out there could not have come up with anything more inappropriate regarding the subject matter of this thread.

Well done, subby.

No, really.

[dantana]

Glad you guys have found it in your heart to give sex offender Neil another shot.

Even the most willfully ignorant, passive aggressive science denier out there could not have come up with anything more inappropriate regarding the subject matter of this thread.

Well done, subby.

No, really.

[subgenius]

Glad you guys have found it in your heart to give sex offender Neil another shot.

Even the most willfully ignorant, passive aggressive science denier out there could not have come up with anything more inappropriate regarding the subject matter of this thread.

Well done, subby.

No, really.

Invoking Neil is the real problem, but yeah me pointing out the double standard is an issue for sure.