Neil deGrasse Tyson Takes on the ‘Cosmos’

[Vasilisa]

Neil deGrasse Tyson Takes on the ‘Cosmos’
The astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium talks about the continuation of a science television legacy as he takes the helm of “Cosmos,” the series first begun by Carl Sagan in the 1980s.
by Dennis Overbye
March 3, 2014
New York Times


Excerpt:
A poignant moment occurs near the end of the first episode of “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” a rollicking 13-part tour of the universe to be broadcast on Fox starting on Sunday.

Sitting on a rock by the Pacific, Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the show and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, pulls out an old desk calendar that had belonged to Carl Sagan, the Cornell astronomer and author. On a date in 1975 he finds his own name. The most famous astronomer in the land had invited young Neil, then a high school student in the Bronx with a passion for astronomy, to spend a day in Ithaca.

Dr. Sagan kindly offered to put him up for the night if his bus didn’t come. As Dr. Tyson told the story, he already knew he wanted to be an astronomer, but that day, he said, “I learned from Carl the kind of person I wanted to be.”

The story serves as a fitting handoff between the cosmic generations. The young student could hardly have guessed that he would grow up not only to be like Dr. Sagan but in some sense to be him.


It was Dr. Sagan, of course, who invited us onto an imaginary spaceship to tour time, space and the human intellectual experience on the original “Cosmos,” which aired on PBS in 1980 and was arguably the most successful popularization of science since Albert Einstein roamed Princeton without his socks.

In 2012 the Library of Congress designated the book version of the show as one of 88books that shaped America (among the others were “Moby-Dick” and “The Joy of Cooking”). In a foreword to a new edition of that book, Dr. Tyson writes that the show revealed “a hidden hunger in us all to learn about our place in the universe and embrace why that matters intellectually, culturally and emotionally.”

Now, as he says in the opening of the new show, “It’s time to get moving again.”

After all, a lot has happened since Dr. Sagan set off on his imaginary spaceship. Robots are exploring Mars, though nobody has been back to the moon. The space shuttle was launched and retired. The expansion of the universe has been found to be accelerating and the temperature of the earth has been found to be warming. We’ve sequenced the genomes of humans and Neanderthals.

Time to get moving, indeed.

The new “Cosmos” might be called the Large Hadron Collider of pop science: expensive, splashy and ambitious. After a series of special showings this week, including one at the White House, it will be shown in 170 countries and 45 languages, on Fox and on the National Geographic Channel — the largest global opening ever for a television series, according to Ann Druyan, Dr. Sagan’s widow and his collaborator on the original “Cosmos,” who is an executive producer and a writer and director of the new series.

I’m not going to pretend to be neutral here. I hope it succeeds and that everyone watches it, not just because I have known Ms. Druyan and admired Dr. Tyson for years, but because we all need a unifying dose of curiosity and wonder.

“Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” comes at a critical moment for a society that is increasingly fragmented.

If we are going to decide big issues, like eating genetically modified food, fracking for natural gas, responding to the prospect of drastic climate change, exploring space or engaging in ambitious science research, we are going to have to start from some common experience.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the longtime senator from New York, once said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. So where are we going to get them?

In science, as in other areas of our culture, there is no dearth of voices, but are we paying attention? In the new New Age, it’s all about which cable channels you watch or whom you follow on Twitter.

We could use a national conversation that is not about scandal or sports. If everybody watches the new “Cosmos,” we can talk about it the way we once argued about “The Sopranos” every Monday morning.

And perhaps that will happen. The early reviews of the series are glowing, and an adoring profile of Dr. Tyson recently appeared in The New Yorker. And we are not talking about tweedy PBS here; the show will be on Fox, home of “24” and “American Idol.”

It’s hard to imagine a better man to reboot the cosmos than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Despite Dr. Sagan’s kindness, the young Mr. Tyson did not attend Cornell but went to Harvard and on to the University of Texas and to Columbia, emerging with a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Since 1996 he has been director of the Hayden.

There he has thrived as the public face of astronomy in the most diverse and brassiest city in the country, well known to late-night television viewers as gregarious about the cosmos.

Few men can get away with wearing a vest with a giant sunburst on it, but Dr. Tyson is one, a big man with a big personality who seems extremely comfortable in his own skin. He’s happy to be thought of as a nerd with street cred. He shines best in impromptu settings like talk shows or needling cosmologists at the annual Asimov debates at the American Museum of Natural History, about nothingness or alternate universes. As the cosmic Everyman in “Cosmos,” he proves a convincing and companionable sidekick and tour guide, adding a little shtick and a wink to let the audience in on the fun. Watch him slip on a pair of sunglasses as we approach the moment of the Big Bang, or cover his ears as he reminds us of a certain asteroid.

But Dr. Tyson is deadly serious about science.

< FULL STORY >

I'm embarrassingly giddy about this. I've been watching the original recently just to refresh. What are your memories or impressions from the original? How do you feel about the new host? I wonder how commercial interruptions will affect the pacing of the series. Alan Silvestri will do the score. Tell me your thoughts

Just for fun:

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I can't remember the last time I was this excited about something on TV. I devoured the original series as a kid, and Carl Sagan's companion book "Cosmos" is my favorite book. I hope they do it justice.

 

[Ivy]

I'm with you guys! Can't wait. I absolutely adored the old show (never read the book). When I outgrew Mr. Rogers, Carl Sagan sort of took the mantle from him as my TV dad.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

5:11

Carl Sagan was a boss and pimp daddy.
[MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION] fun fact: Mr. Wizard was created by splicing Sagan's DNA with Mr. Rogers' DNA.

 

[Ginkgo]

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

So, even though I'm a 90's child, Carl Sagan's Cosmos inspired me after I first stumbled upon it on someone's Youtube playlist in my early 20's.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and acquaintance of the late Carl Sagan, started to host a reboot of the series this year.

I'm not certain as to how I should feel. On one hand, I like that a competent successor has carried on Sagan's legacy in an attempt to popularize science. On the other hand, the way Tyson and Seth McFarlane teach seems more jarring and smug compared to Sagan's more charming approach; maybe it seems this way because we've entered an era that exceeds the style of documentary Cosmos, in general, has to offer. Or maybe the content of the original series just got the synapses firing far more back when we weren't already flooded in an age of information.

In a modern context, I almost feel as though A Spacetime Odyssey is meant as a counter-point and a final blow to New Earth Creationists and apologists of this decade and the decade prior. If that's their agenda, then OK - but I still feel like there's something to be desired in this series.

Has anyone else seen it?

 

[Tellenbach]

On the other hand, the way Tyson and Seth McFarlane teach seems more jarring and smug compared to Sagan's more charming approach;

I think you hit the nail on the head with "smug". Tyson is the wrong host for this. Alan Alda, while not a scientist, did a terrific job hosting an episode of NOVA. Richard C. Hoagland, while not mainstream, is another personable presenter. I've only seen about 30 minutes of this series; it just didn't hold my interest.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think you hit the nail on the head with "smug". Tyson is the wrong host for this. Alan Alda, while not a scientist, did a terrific job hosting an episode of NOVA. Richard C. Hoagland, while not mainstream, is another personable presenter. I've only seen about 30 minutes of this series; it just didn't hold my interest.

It's not even that I dislike Tyson, because I don't. I just think he's better as a solo "personality" of science. He employs an ill-fitting brand of charisma that would be more palatable in small doses. He's good for memes and short videos, because it is then that his smugness could easily be interpreted as confidence in work that is too extensive to be clearly ironed out for the masses.

He has a right to be self-satisfied about his profession, but he loses his credibility once it globs onto the set of principles and ideals that Cosmos hopes to embody.

I'd like to hear some positive, well-reasoned feedback for this series. Otherwise, this thread just comes off as too one-sided.

 

[Mal12345]

It's not even that I dislike Tyson, because I don't. I just think he's better as a solo "personality" of science. He employs an ill-fitting brand of charisma that would be more palatable in small doses. He's good for memes and short videos, because it is then that his smugness could easily be interpreted as confidence in work that is too extensive to be clearly ironed out for the masses.

He has a right to be self-satisfied about his profession, but he loses his credibility once it globs onto the set of principles and ideals that Cosmos hopes to embody.

I'd like to hear some positive, well-reasoned feedback for this series. Otherwise, this thread just comes off as too one-sided.

You're just used to seeing Tyson in memes and short videos.

 

[Ginkgo]

You're just used to seeing Tyson in memes and short videos.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I am super nostalgic for the original Cosmos and Sagan's style, but I enjoy the new Cosmos for the most part.

 

[yeghor]

So, even though I'm a 90's child, Carl Sagan's Cosmos inspired me after I first stumbled upon it on someone's Youtube playlist in my early 20's.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and acquaintance of the late Carl Sagan, started to host a reboot of the series this year.

I'm not certain as to how I should feel. On one hand, I like that a competent successor has carried on Sagan's legacy in an attempt to popularize science. On the other hand, the way Tyson and Seth McFarlane teach seems more jarring and smug compared to Sagan's more charming approach; maybe it seems this way because we've entered an era that exceeds the style of documentary Cosmos, in general, has to offer. Or maybe the content of the original series just got the synapses firing far more back when we weren't already flooded in an age of information.

In a modern context, I almost feel as though A Spacetime Odyssey is meant as a counter-point and a final blow to New Earth Creationists and apologists of this decade and the decade prior. If that's their agenda, then OK - but I still feel like there's something to be desired in this series.

Has anyone else seen it?

Could it be that late Sagan and Feynman were NFs? Sagan sounds very idealistic in his speeches... Feynman OTOH is very childish and lively... They do not have that "stiffness"?

Oh and I've got some stuff posted here... I'd love if (plural) you contributed...

 

[93JC]

I'm not certain as to how I should feel. On one hand, I like that a competent successor has carried on Sagan's legacy in an attempt to popularize science. On the other hand, the way Tyson and Seth McFarlane teach seems more jarring and smug compared to Sagan's more charming approach; maybe it seems this way because we've entered an era that exceeds the style of documentary Cosmos, in general, has to offer. Or maybe the content of the original series just got the synapses firing far more back when we weren't already flooded in an age of information.

In a modern context, I almost feel as though A Spacetime Odyssey is meant as a counter-point and a final blow to New Earth Creationists and apologists of this decade and the decade prior. If that's their agenda, then OK - but I still feel like there's something to be desired in this series.

Has anyone else seen it?

I've been watching since it debuted. I can't quite put my finger on what's 'off' about it but I have felt it just as you have. It comes across as a bit reactionary against religious dingbattery rather than being simply informational.

 

[meowington]

Could it be that late Sagan and Feynman were NFs? Sagan sounds very idealistic in his speeches... Feynman OTOH is very childish and lively... They do not have that "stiffness"?

Sagan was an INFJ : idealistic, always spoke in context of the big picture (about us as a species etc.), very future oriented ("look at venus to see what's gonna happen with earth" etc.) and most of all : his speech. He had an almost caricatural way of emphasizing words in every sentence. Very vivid imagination (he wrote "contact", he described how aliens might look like -something along the lines of huge zeppelin like creatures floating through gas fields and absorbing it, etc.). Starry-eyed. Stiffness in movement. His haircut

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

i think sagan was ntj.

 

[Vasilisa]

Neil deGrasse Tyson type discussion
Carl Sagan type discussion

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

the way Tyson and Seth McFarlane teach seems more jarring and smug compared to Sagan's more charming approach; maybe it seems this way because we've entered an era that exceeds the style of documentary Cosmos, in general, has to offer. Or maybe the content of the original series just got the synapses firing far more back when we weren't already flooded in an age of information.

In a modern context, I almost feel as though A Spacetime Odyssey is meant as a counter-point and a final blow to New Earth Creationists and apologists of this decade and the decade prior. If that's their agenda, then OK - but I still feel like there's something to be desired in this series.

Has anyone else seen it?

I've been watching since it debuted. I can't quite put my finger on what's 'off' about it but I have felt it just as you have. It comes across as a bit reactionary against religious dingbattery rather than being simply informational.

I would put it like 93JC did; there's something "off" about Tyson's presentation style. But I don't think it's smugness, and don't see it as reactionary against New Earth Creationism or more general faith based anti-science. In fact, my sense is that there has been a deliberate effort to NOT be like that and to stick to the facts without getting involved in that debate. What we may be reading as smug might be the natural consequence of presenting facts in a clear and informational style in a culture where there is significant opposition to the truth of those facts; the gaping chasm between the facts and the opposition causes even the recitation of the facts in this particular debate to sound like a shot in a culture war. It's like we're feeling a phantom limb that isn't actually part of the show.

I think what might be off about Tyson's presentation is simply the fact that he's not an actor. I know he's appeared on television before, but never to such an extent and never in such a formal style. I think he's genuinely earnest and enthusiastic, but he comes across to me as insincere sometimes because he's not modulating his presentation style as precisely as an actor might.

All that said, I'm really enjoying the series. It's not as good as the original (or maybe how I've deified the original in my mind); it feels less intimate and seems unnecessarily showy. But it's very good. I really enjoy the animated bits, I think it's a great way to tell the stories.

 

[Ginkgo]

I would put it like 93JC did; there's something "off" about Tyson's presentation style. But I don't think it's smugness, and don't see it as reactionary against New Earth Creationism or more general faith based anti-science. In fact, my sense is that there has been a deliberate effort to NOT be like that and to stick to the facts without getting involved in that debate. What we may be reading as smug might be the natural consequence of presenting facts in a clear and informational style in a culture where there is significant opposition to the truth of those facts; the gaping chasm between the facts and the opposition causes even the recitation of the facts in this particular debate to sound like a shot in a culture war. It's like we're feeling a phantom limb that isn't actually part of the show.

I think what might be off about Tyson's presentation is simply the fact that he's not an actor. I know he's appeared on television before, but never to such an extent and never in such a formal style. I think he's genuinely earnest and enthusiastic, but he comes across to me as insincere sometimes because he's not modulating his presentation style as precisely as an actor might.

All that said, I'm really enjoying the series. It's not as good as the original (or maybe how I've deified the original in my mind); it feels less intimate and seems unnecessarily showy. But it's very good. I really enjoy the animated bits, I think it's a great way to tell the stories.

The deliberate effort shows, and therein, there's a point of contention to be spotted by anyone who's been on either side of the debate. It was hard for me not to notice, due to the phantom limb you referred to. Not to mention the fact that Tyson has claimed to be agnostic, though he wishes not to be lumped into any label that would indicate that he's a 'reactionary'. They took note of the fact that, historically, many of the most significant scientific breakthroughs were born out of oppressive conditions, sometimes in a backlash, and other times more ambiguously. Newton's adherence to theism, in spite of his idiosyncratic way of fusing it with naturalism, would be a good example of how scientific thought and religious thought aren't mutually exclusive. So they don't really present science and religion as part of a dichotomy. But people who do see it as a dichotomy will disagree, so despite their attempts to sidestep the conflict, they've opened up a new opportunity to engage in it. Basically I'm left with the conclusion that the most relevant audience for this show would be too young to be concerned with that riffraff, or people like you and I who've taken unusual stances. That considered, while watching the cartoons, I suppose I do feel a bit patronized. Maybe if they aired an episode of Tyson teaching in a classroom as Sagan did, then I'd feel that the presentation style would be more direct in how it addresses the audience.

In any case, I'll probably be watching the next episode, as I am intrigued and entertained enough.

 

[93JC]

I would put it like 93JC did; there's something "off" about Tyson's presentation style. But I don't think it's smugness, and don't see it as reactionary against New Earth Creationism or more general faith based anti-science. In fact, my sense is that there has been a deliberate effort to NOT be like that and to stick to the facts without getting involved in that debate. What we may be reading as smug might be the natural consequence of presenting facts in a clear and informational style in a culture where there is significant opposition to the truth of those facts; the gaping chasm between the facts and the opposition causes even the recitation of the facts in this particular debate to sound like a shot in a culture war. It's like we're feeling a phantom limb that isn't actually part of the show.

I'm not a part of the "culture where there is significant opposition to the truth" (a.k.a. what I called "religious dingbattery"). I think that's the problem. What you see as "a clear and informational style" I see as very deliberately crafted to counteract a certain point of view. It's not just "clear and informational", it's designed with a message behind it.

I feel like it's designed to be ammunition in a debate that I'm not a part of. I feel like it's dumbed down and presented in a way that makes it a counterpoint to what I think of as a sort of "anti-intellectualism" that pervades the United States. This is "the phantom limb" you referred to. At the same time I feel like it panders to the "other side of the debate", and is dumbed down just enough for them to be able to use it to teach their "conservative" friends and colleagues what the rest of us already know.

E.g. in the last episode I watched (I can't remember if it was the most recent or the one before that) they spent a great deal of it on the Islamic Golden Age. Obviously this was an important part of human history ("Arabic numerals", algebra, star names, etc.) but there was just a little twinge of... preaching to it. Preaching to the "anti-intellectual" side that there was a time when islamic scholars were the some of the most important and progressive on the planet. Preaching that Islam does not necessarily entail fundamentalism and terrorism and all the other negative things we've come to associate with Islam in the last forty years or so.

Maybe that's what it takes to get through to those sorts of people: they need or only respond to preaching, not teaching. I don't like preaching, even when it's stuff I already know. Being that I'm not American and this sort of BS is not a part of my culture it comes across as very weird and foreign to me.

 

[Ginkgo]

Maybe that's what it takes to get through to those sorts of people: they need or only respond to preaching, not teaching. I don't like preaching, even when it's stuff I already know. Being that I'm not American and this sort of BS is not a part of my culture it comes across as very weird and foreign to me.

This brings to mind a thought I had as I read FMW's post: It's not Tyson's job to act in Cosmos so much as it is to teach.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I feel like it's dumbed down and presented in a way that makes it a counterpoint to what I think of as a sort of "anti-intellectualism" that pervades the United States. This is "the phantom limb" you referred to. At the same time I feel like it panders to the "other side of the debate", and is dumbed down just enough for them to be able to use it to teach their "conservative" friends and colleagues what the rest of us already know.

You make some good points, especially as someone who is outside this particular debate. That said, I'm not sure "dumbed down" is a fair criticism of a TV show on a major broadcast network devoted to entertainment. It's all in the context. I think that particular criticism would be at least a bit more (if not entirely) fair if directed at an episode of "Nova" or a feature documentary. The audience for this show is the mainstream TV viewer, and it necessarily deals in broad concepts. I think the show serves this audience well, and there are certainly places for interested parties to explore these ideas in more depth and complexity if the show inspires them to do so.

This brings to mind a thought I had as I read FMW's post: It's not Tyson's job to act in Cosmos so much as it is to teach.

I think his first job is absolutely to teach. I was just trying to point out that the "something off" we all noticed might have as much or more to do with Tyson's comfort/skill/experience in front of the camera as with any editorial slant of the show.