Talk:Cosmos: A Personal Voyage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Opening Discussion
2 What was it actually about?
3 External link to list of music
4 New article for the book only
5 Article could be improved with Quotes
6 Modern equivalent
7 "The show was shot on multi-media"
8 Title of 14th episode
9 Fair use rationale for Image:CosmosDVDC.jpg
10 Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan VLA2.jpg
11 Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan planetary orbits2.jpg
12 Episode names and spellings.
13 Fair use rationale for Image:Cosmos a special edition3.jpg
14 Science channel confusion

[edit] Opening Discussion

Added some text to distinguish Sagan's views on Hypatia with those of his views on astrology and evolution. The latter does reflect the consensus of persons in the field, while the former does not. -- User:Roadrunner

Please qualify this statement. What is the "consensus in the field", and according to whom? I have done some research and reworking on Hypatia of Alexandria, and Sagan's presentation is pretty much in line with the facts, even with recent interpretations. Where's your beef?

I also don't understand why you have added another Vangelis link, there is already one at the top. Our convention is to avoid duplicate links. Furthermore, the reference is inaccurate: Cosmos included a wide selection of music, not just Vangelis. I have to check which particular pieces created the copyright problems. --Eloquence

The consensus in the field is that we really aren't sure what happened and that Sagan's interpretation of events is one of several possible ones which are consistent with the known facts. This is a *very* different situation than Sagan's views toward astrology and evolution. -- User:Roadrunner

Sorry, but I'm getting the impression that this is your opinion. Can you actually point me to any published paper or article that discusses this alleged controversy? --Eloquence

What about the Wikipedia article on Hypatia which I believe you help to write in which there are about three or four different possible motivations for Hypatia's death. The problem here is that Sagan's description of Hypatia's takes one of them and runs with it. And yes I can find some published papers, but it will take be a while. We went through this once before when the Hypatia article was first written. -- Roadrunner:User:Roadrunner

I'm aware of the history of the Hypatia article. Even there, those were just claims, not backed up with any sources. It's quite possible that I will delete this section during future edits if there's no backup for this claim.

Yes, Sagan took one interpretation and ran with it, although the facts in the Hypatia matter are much less controversial than you think (we know that she was murdered by a Christian mob, that she was the daughter of the last head of the museum/library, that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed during her lifetime etc. etc.). He did that during the entire series, which is called "A Personal Voyage". His views on possible life on Mars, the greenhouse effect, the Velikovsky hypothesis etc. were made clear throughout the series, they are all his, based on his evaluations of the facts. He never claimed to do an NPOV presentation.

So if it is just the opinion of some Wikipedians that he went overboard here, it has no place in the article. If, however, there was a serious controversy about Sagan's presentation of Hypatia/the LoA in particular, we need to mention it. So please try to dig up whatever you can find, but if you can't find anything, we'll leave that part out for the time being. --Eloquence

What about book by the Harvard Press "Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzielska translated by F. Lyra.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DZIHYP.html

She argues that Hypatia was killed in a political feud between Cyril and Orestes (who was also a Christian) in which Hypatia backed the wrong side. She also spends a lot of time punching holes in some of the myths that have developed around Hypatia.

As far as the NPOV nature of Cosmos. Many astronomers who I know have the problem with Cosmos (and Sagan in general) that since it was NPOV, there was no distinction made between Sagan's personal views and the scientific consensus on an issue.

I'm aware of Dzielska's book, I'll incorporate some more information from it into the Hypatia article, particularly about Hypatia's circle. Orestes was a Christian, but he also got along with pagans like Hypatia, and the more fundamentalist Cyril and his followers, just like his predecessor Theophilus, wanted to remove all "idolatry" from the city. Dzielska does not ignore these religious issues. It is no coincidence that one year after Hypatia's death, Orosius wrote in his aptly titled "History against the Pagans" that books were taken from pagan temples by the Christians (in some translations the books are destroyed, not in the official Catholic translation which still has the imprimatur from the office of censorship). With Hypatia dead, "the last remains of idolatry in the city" were removed, and Cyril became "the new Theophilus".

The reason many established scientists didn't like COSMOS is that it brought science to the unwashed masses. A common response was that complex issues like the Doppler effect or the Big Bang could not be understood without understanding the underlying physical laws and mathematical formulas (which is ass-backwards, because the brain can only work if it has strong emotional memories to connect new memories to -- Sagan's explanations were perfect building blocks, which is why he so successfully inspired many, many viewers to go into science). And they disliked him even more for using this opportunity to promote what he believed to be the best intepretations of the facts. But Sagan did usually (not always) mention when he was speculating. --Eloquence

I'll start deferring more to you on classical history, but you need to give me some slack as far as astronomy. Established scientists in general *liked* Cosmos because it brought science to the unwashed masses. The problem is that it brought tended to present Sagan's opinions as fact and failed to adequately distinguish when he was on solid ground and when he was speculating. This caused problems because when he was speculating (like on nuclear winter) the general public gave his opinions much more weight than other scientists who weren't as good at connecting with the public. Curiously it causes even more problems when he is on solid ground. Sagan's opinions on evolution and astrology are the mainstream scientific opinion, but by mixing mainstream opinion and his personal views, he actually weakens the mainstream opinion.

Some of this *is* professional jealousy, but some of it does have to do with the difficulties in explaining scientific concepts to the public.

For example, the big bang. It is possible to give an understandable cartoon version of the big bang, but if someone says that the big bang is non-sense, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of that claim without going into the nitty-gritty of the mathematics. The concern of a lot of scientists is that when faced with public policy questions that the public will tend to gravitate toward the people with the best and flashiest videos rather than to dig deep to figure out what is going on.-- User:Roadrunner

Have you actually watched Cosmos? As I already said, Sagan usually distinguished opinion from fact and used a lot of phrases like "We are quite sure that ..", "We still don't know if ..", "Can it be that ..". His nuclear winter hypothesis, which reasonable people can disagree with, was published after Cosmos. You are right: "if someone says that the big bang is non-sense, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of that claim without going into the nitty-gritty of the mathematics." But that was not the point of Cosmos -- the point of Cosmos was to give a good summary of the state of mainstream science of the time, with Sagan as a personal teacher. Cosmos is the "gateway drug" into science, if people got more interested, they could look into all the smaller and larger debates. If Sagan had actually done what some people wanted him to do, Cosmos would have been unwatchable.

"Sagan's opinions on evolution and astrology are the mainstream scientific opinion, but by mixing mainstream opinion and his personal views, he actually weakens the mainstream opinion" -- huh? What kind of logic is that? Sagan was a trusted authority to his viewers. What he said was taken seriously. He debunked creationism and astrology, which many people outside the scientific mainstream believe to be equally "valid views" without realizing the difference between science and pseudoscience. Sagan explained that difference. He did so in more detail in his book "Science as a Candle in the Dark".

"The concern of a lot of scientists is that when faced with public policy questions that the public will tend to gravitate toward the people with the best and flashiest videos rather than to dig deep to figure out what is going on." That concern is justified, because most people will gravitate to the people with the best and flashiest videos. So we better make sure that they're good videos, eh? The same scientists who complained about Cosmos have no complaints about astrology hotlines, televangelists, and other religious/pseudoscientific crap in mainstream TV. The argument that Cosmos was somehow inappropriate is riddled with giant black holes. --Eloquence

Pausing for a note of thanks...I'm grateful for the note about the Region 0 DVD release, which I've now bought. Lee M 04:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

added (half a billion) after the 500,000 number (1st paragraph), out of respect and honour for sagan's use of the word 'billion'. --Revsuicide 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What was it actually about?

I think the article is missing a little piece in the introduction explaining what the series was about. I haven't seen the series since it was first aired in the UK more than twenty years ago so my memory is a little hazy. I propose to add "The series covered a wide range of scientific subjects including the origin of life and a perspective of our place in the universe." at the end of the first paragraph --Etimbo | Talk 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's done. --Etimbo | Talk 12:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External link to list of music

I have moved the external link to the list of music used in the series to the See also section. This is because the site it links to does not assert that there were copyright problems with the music and so I believe the link does not belong in the main body of the article as a reference. I also removed the text about missing images: when I looked that the site in question an image was shown. --Etimbo | Talk 15:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article for the book only

For the new generations who have never seen the show but who have picked up the book, which is in many public libraries. --snpoj

[edit] Article could be improved with Quotes

What do you think yes, no, ...

Theo Pardilla 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern equivalent

What's a really good documentary or documentary series that deals with astronomy that is more accurate to today's knowledge, or is Cosmos still worth viewing to a modern audience?--Sonjaaa 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos is not only still worth viewing nearly thirty years from its inception, but ought to be mandatory viewing for every high school in the nation. While certain specifics may be in need of up-dating, the brilliance of this series lies in the broad strokes - Sagan's delivery is powerful and moving, his words near poetry, and he illicits a timeless passion for science and reason. Watching it now, I find myself stunned by just how damned good this show is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

try PBS Nova: The Elegant Universe. Super-recommended if you liked Cosmos. And think up some more stuff -- perhaps we can make a "see also" section for the article. Te2rx 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The show was shot on multi-media"

The show might be comprised of multi-media. But it was either shot on video or film. And it was very very unlikely to have been shot on film. - Abscissa 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of 14th episode

Does anyone recall if the "14th episode" -- the Ted Turner-Carl Sagan interview that was included in the first VHS release of the series -- had a title? Also, I state in the article that it wasn't included on the DVD, based on what I've been able to find out about the set (which is apparently very rare); I'm happy to stand corrected if the interview is included after all. 23skidoo 04:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CosmosDVDC.jpg

Image:CosmosDVDC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan VLA2.jpg

Image:Sagan VLA2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done! Necessary Evil (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan planetary orbits2.jpg

Image:Sagan planetary orbits2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done! Necessary Evil (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode names and spellings.

There is a difference in episode names and spellings for Episode 6, 8 and 12. I have the "7-disc Collector's Edition, digitally remastered from Cosmos studios, 2000".

Episode #	Opening sequence	DVD menu	printed on DVD	printed on box	Cosmos books
Ep. 6	Travellers' Tales	Travelers' Tales	Travellers' Tales	Travellers' Tales	Travelers' Tales
Ep. 8	Journeys in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time
Ep. 12	Encyclopaedia Galactica	Encyclopaedia Galactica	Encyclopedia Galactica	Encyclopedia Galactica	Encyclopaedia Galactica

It is obvious that the names and spellings in the Opening Sequence are the correct ones because that's what the viewers saw in 1980. The episode names in the book are correct for the Cosmos (book) article. How do we avoid that casual editors, who only look at the DVD cover, change the names? I've tried with a hidden message, but Theo Pardilla removed it with this strange explanation:"no<< content". The hidden messages could save us from a lot of reverting and maybe edit wars. What do you think? Necessary Evil (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The hidden message had as much clarity as my 'strange explanation'.

I have copied the table to the article but it needs to be stated in the article which titles version is being used. I prefer the opening sequence version as its nearest to the original media, particularly as this article is about the video not the book, with the actual video content being primary. Theo Pardilla 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

July 27th 2006 24.255.2.71 changed the correct Traveller's to the incorrect Traveler's [1]. When I discovered this article, I compared the titles with my Cosmos book and saw nothing wrong with them. January 14th 2008 24.150.50.196 was awaken and corrected Traveler's to Traveller's [2]. I double checked with my DVD and realised that others might believe the book title was the correct one - that's why I inserted the hidden  message, so that other users would be deterred from changing the correct title to an incorrect one.

June 29th 2007 Quatermass changed the correct Journeys to the incorrect Travels [3] probably because it is the title in the book and DVD cover. Hidden messages can save us a lot of trouble. Necessary Evil (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. However hidden messages need to be more specific and detailed such as "Dont change this title as it varies across different media; and it has been decided to to use the titles from the (select media type eg opening sequence). See title box in article and discusssion page"

--Theo Pardilla 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cosmos a special edition3.jpg

Image:Cosmos a special edition3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

done! --Necessary Evil (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science channel confusion

Is it true that the Science Channel is only airing 8 episodes out of the 13 originally in the series? Latitude0116 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)