Cosmos ratings disappoint?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 17, 2014

Cosmology, Culture, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… despite heavy promotion and curiosity — a science documentary right after “Family Guy,” how crazy is that? — “Cosmos” did not exactly deliver a big bang, with 5.8 million total viewers, according to Nielsen.

Significantly, it was third place, after a sci-fi drama:

Instead of true science, more viewers seemed to prefer sci-fi drama, with 13.3 million tuning in to the launch of ABC’s “Resurrection,” about the dead returning to life. It was this season’s most-watched drama premiere after CBS’ “Intelligence,” which had the benefit of an “NCIS” lead-in back in January.

That makes sense, of course. The multiverse is sci-fi, but without the Star Trek cast.

They’re hoping it will do well in the DVD market.

Note: Maybe publicly funded schools will buy it, to introduce students to multiverse theory.

Comments

Jacques Cousteau's adventures- now that is something worth re-doing in the 21st centuryJoe_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PST}

Cosmos isn't about science. It is just materialistic dogma disguised as science.Joe_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PST}

I'm very concerned about this being shown in public schools and promoted as science!tjguy_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PST}

If I had the time and talent I would make an audio recording that could be played simultaneously on my computer while Cosmos was played muted on my HD tv. I'll bet the Cosmos video with the correct explanations would be awesome. Somewhat like viewing the Grand Canyon without a tour guide to ruin the view with babble about how a little river water caused all of what is seen over a long period of time.awstar_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PST}

Here is what I think is hypocritical; If a uneducated layman says that evolution is just a theory. An evolutionist will be quick to point out the scientific definition of theory which is basically, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment(or their interpretation of the "facts"). I pulled this quote directly from Wikipedia. When it comes to the multiverse however, currently there is no way to test the idea, so at this point it is clearly a hypothesis. But these same scientists never discuss the "hypothesis" of the multiverse, rather the "theory" of the multiverse. Its something I think we should differentiate here when discussing the idea. P.S. I mean no disrespect to the original poster of this thread who uses the term "theory".fryether_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PST}

A colleague of mine, a fairly prominent researcher, noted that he was the only scientist in the entire University faculty (including the physics, chemistry and biology departments) that had seen either of the first two episodes. The summary is this: if it's science, I can learn more on Google; if it's not science, I can find more entertainment on Google. If it's truth, I can test it in the lab. If it's dogma, I can watch it on Fox. A broader context might be understood as follows: 1.) If people want beautiful, poetically presented scientism, they will watch Sagan's cosmos. 2.) The same old strict materialism and 19th century relic of Darwinism isn't interesting or captivating for an educated or sophisticated audience anymore. They've heard it, and yearn for more. 3.) If viewers are looking for something newer, they might find the exploration of the multiverse hypothesis as entertaining and newer but not science in any empirical sense of the word. 4.) The most intriguing discoveries in science in the last thirty years have directly or indirectly challenged major scientific theories and assumptions, as discoveries always have and always will; and, so far, this show is a piece of apologetics dismissing or ignoring all of them in a failingly miserable attempt at trying to help the layperson's flagging materialistic faith from evaporating completely. 5.) NDT was once a promising mind; but the ground has moved underneath his feet and he comes off as the old coot reminiscing about a bygone era. Why defend old beliefs? Let's move on. All historical scientific truths are provisional, not absolute, and are overturned every 5-10 years. 6.) "Who ya gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?" was once charming. But now, with information at people's fingertips, and varied interpretations from very smart people, this approach is antiquated, not convincing and renders the show completely irrelevant. 7.) The audience for whom this type of show is most appealing may not even watch it because they'll likely already be acquainted with the more caustic (and therefore more exciting) versions of traditionalist materialist apologetics like those presented by Stenger, Coyne, etc. Banal and Boring. P.s. - udat, I love that link.jw777_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

Its too bad but it must be said. Quotas/Affirmative action get in the way of success and don't progress it. The Ham/Nye debate has been seen by more then saw this show. Less then 1% saw this tv show. Perhaps more cartoons were needed.! I still love its existing however as it has aimed at creationism thus being a witness, for future researchers, about the decline of evolutionism. Space shows had to add their intellectual punch to defend the empire. Possibly Obama endorsing it hurt with TRUE americans also.Robert Byers_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

Tyson is apparently the new Dawkins for the "I love science" crowd who mindlessly click "like" on "science" things. The following link is a great takedown of a certain FB page, WARNING for language: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd
What you actually "love" is photography, not science. Below are a handful of posts from "I ******* love science:" The page is comprised mostly of pictures of space, Neil deGrasse Tyson, pop-science junk, worn out memes, Neil deGrasse Tyson and thinly veiled political agendas. Oh, and Neil deGrasse Tyson:
udat_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST}

Not surprising at all, in my opinion the presenter of the show is drab and is not very engaging. On another note what do the intellectual giants at UD like BA77, KF, BA, VJT think about the new discovery that bolsters the Big Bang theory?Chalciss_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST}

Degrasse and his pompous, arrogant bretheren claim to know how the universe and life began with details soon to come. What the hell reason is there to watch when all mystery, when the big questions are dismissed by episode two? No cliffhanger, no show. Naturalistic science is its own worst enemy when it comes to trying to engage the general public. It has no interesting story to tell.lpadron_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PST}

Just let it die a quiet death...johnp_{March 17, 2014
March
03
Mar
17
17
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply