-Submitted by David Durmm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Professor Brian Cox, a particle physicist at the University of Manchester and host of Wonders of the Solar System on the Science Channel, has brought the wrath of the Astrological Association of Great Britain upon himself. Professor Cox, on BBC2’s “Stargazing Live” show, said that “astrology is nonsense” and the Association wants the BBC to commit to “making a fair and balanced representation of astrology in the future.”
There’s a lot of money at stake.
It’s estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on astrology every year in the United States alone. If people start listening to Professor Cox, there will be less stupidity for the astrologers con-artists to prey upon.
Astrology is a fraud that racks in hundreds of millions of dollars. The fraudsters must maintain the illusion of the con. Those that point out that the emperor has no clothes must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. The facts must be kept out of the media. I have little sympathy for those who believe in astrology, but I have no sympathy for those who exploit them.
The stupid and their money are soon parted.
H/T: Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy.
Tony, Flatland the movie is based on Abbots book. If you’re familiar with the book you might find the movie fun with the kids or grandkids or just a beer and popcorn, if you, like me, watch kids movies without the kids. 🙂
By the way Flatland was not a new invention of Sagan’s, as I’m sure he would have been the first to acknowledge. A satirical novel by that name published in the 1880s by Edwin Abbott is still regarded as a classic for its lucid introduction to spacial dimensions.
Lotta,
Between you and me … when Sagan began to introduc me to his definition of the 4th dimension my first thought was … spirituality?
Blouise, “…remember “Flatland” width and length but no height; left/right, forward/back but no up/down … then the 3 dimensional apple (the voice from within to the flatlander)that mysteriously appears from nowhere … so let’s think about the world of 4 dimensions … pure joy!”
———-
I’m not surprised to hear you were ‘inspired’ in some measure by Cosmos and have no doubt that everyone you have cared for professionally has benefited.
Flatland! Yes. That was the first time I the concept illustrated actually. A sci-fi TV show used that as a plot device a few years ago to explain the ever-changing appearance of a UFO- ‘we perceive that it ‘changes’ because it’s inter-dimensional, we are seeing cross sections as it enters our dimension’ TA DAAAAAA, serious, big concept music for punctation. 🙂 It was cool in Cosmos and later, with good CGI. 🙂
There’s a movie “Flatland” which I have seen, taken from the book by the same name. It’s a ‘kids’ movie but cute and with a point:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8oiwnNlyE4&w=640&h=390]
Tony Sidaway: “In that context when this newcomer, Cosmos, appeared, some felt that it was a little underwhelming. Sagan appeared to be talking down to us in a way we weren’t used to. To us in our complacency, used to these very grown-up BBC productions, that seemed like a bad thing at the time and some of Sagan’s concerned seemed wide of the mark.”
————
It struck me at he time as “slow” in that it reiterated very basic things. I was used to a faster pace and watched any documentary I could get my hands, or eyes, upon so I was familiar with many BBC productions from watching our ‘public’ channel. It was written for all ages and it was paced for a classroom environment IMO. In my schooling we watched a lot of science and history documentaries and dramas illustrating history (16mm projector right in the classroom! LOL, high tech in the 50’s-60’s in my school) and the format and pace had that feel. I didn’t mind.
The Kepler episode was also one of my favorites, it’s the one I remembered fondly for putting flesh on the bones. I was younger then and the more drama the better. Triumph out of the tragedy of a life’s work going down the wrong path.
I loved the basketball sized model of the cosmos that was cut away and contained, in ever smaller scale, all of the perfect geometric solids. They just never seemed to fit properly in that sphere or within each other, which I’m sure was the point.
another dollar earned … I wonder if the income has to be claimed
Has anyone seem tootie or chan l. I miss what they have to say. They are the smartest people on here.
James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 1 of 5
Lotta,
“I wept with joy when Sagan (as I recall) put his hand on a tree and said “Our cousins the trees” and again with the closing episode and the statement above. One wonders, if a poll were taken of everyone that watched that series, how many would say the way the see the world was changed by it, that it inspired them to become scientists, or upon reflection, activists or teachers?”
Mark me in the column “yes”. I have the DVD set and watch favorite episodes over and over … remember “Flatland” width and length but no height; left/right, forward/back but no up/down … then the 3 dimensional apple (the voice from within to the flatlander)that mysteriously appears from nowhere … so let’s think about the world of 4 dimensions … pure joy!
Then there was James Burke’s “Connections” from BBC Science & Features Department … wonderful! (I remember being particularly struck by the connections between the printing press, Indulgences, and the Reformation) Most of those episodes can be found online.
For Gyges (“…after that one episode of the X-files I’ve never seen tea reading mentioned in pop culture.
“),
Where have u been?
“The romantic version of that is “we are all stardust”.
The realistic version of that is “we are all nuclear waste by products”. ”
no, there is no romance in fission, luckily stars are into fusion, much less radioactive waste…it’s those fissions that cause all the ugliness.
I’m definitely pro-fusion !
Just for you, Maaarrghk!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc&w=480&h=390]
Re: my last post. That’s PROFFESSOR Brian Cox, not Doctor. If we had not been “de-gunned” over here, I would go and do the decent thing.
I was doing A-levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry when Cosmos was shown on the BBC. I cannot understand why it has never been repeated.
Thanks for the clip Woosty, it was great to hear Sagans voice again as well as “Alpha” by Vangelis.
I remember the episode about Kepler also. I also remember the begining of another episode where an apple pie is taken from the oven, brought and set in front of Sagan, who said “To make an apple pie from first principles, we would have to create the Universe”. Marvelous stuff.
I remember growing up in the 1970s with great documentaries like Horizon (the British weekly science documentary series that inspired Nova), and of course Bronowski’s Ascent of Man and Jonathan Miller’s often-overlooked 1979 medical documentary series The Body in Question.
In that context when this newcomer, Cosmos, appeared, some felt that it was a little underwhelming. Sagan appeared to be talking down to us in a way we weren’t used to. To us in our complacency, used to these very grown-up BBC productions, that seemed like a bad thing at the time and some of Sagan’s concerned seemed wide of the mark.
Looking at it from the vantage point of 2010, it has stood the test of time and stands with the others, but perhaps alone it is accessible to quite young children.
The BBC tradition has continued and strengthened, with collaborations such as David Attenborough’s documentary series starting with Life on Earth, Brian Cox’s Wonders of the Solar System, numerous documentaries down the years from Richard Dawkins and other pioneers of science communication. And not forgetting the BBC’s 1978 biographical drama, The Voyage of Charles Darwin.
Going back to Cosmos, I remember a particularly poignant episode outlined the life of Johannes Kepler. To astrologers Kepler’s work in astrology is still known, but it’s rightly forgotten by science and plays no part in Sagan’s documentary. Instead Sagan concentrates on outlining Kepler’s efforts to match his vision of a mathematically perfect solar system constructed by God on the ratios of the platonic solids (the regular convex polyhedra). Attention is paid to Kepler’s eventual rejection of his vision, because the observations he obtained from Brahe did not match that predicted to perfection, and Sagan uses that as a model to explain how scientists work. This is a wonderful sequence, readily understood by any child interested in mathematics or astronomy, and is typical of Sagan’s gift for telling a good tale to get his point across.
BIL, You are correct, of course, but where is the joy in your statement, where is passion? It just doesn’t sing. 🙂 I poke at your logic. I scorn your clarity. I want the true ‘music of the spheres’. 🙂
Prior to Cosmos (1980), if you wanted to find out about the cosmos and the earth and evolution and all that jazz you had to read. Buy books, visit the library and buy speciality magazines.
I know you know this but I’m just ruminating and you seem to be the only one awake posting to this thread so I’m just going to ruminate at you. 🙂
Then you had to read more books that puled it together, or took a crack at puling it all together. And then there was “COSMOS”. They weren’t new ideas, it was pretty settled knowledge but there it was; all put together, sequentially, with cool visuals, clear narration and treated with respect and love. LOVE. Love for the majesty of it.
I wept with joy when Sagan (as I recall) put his hand on a tree and said “Our cousins the trees” and again with the closing episode and the statement above. One wonders, if a poll were taken of everyone that watched that series, how many would say the way the see the world was changed by it, that it inspired them to become scientists, or upon reflection, activists or teachers?
“Cosmos” and Bronowski’s “The Ascent of Man” were always the first things out of my mouth when someone I was talking to started saying that TV had no value.
Gotta’ do a search – back momentarily . . . .
The episode of AoM #11 (forgot which one it was)and I’ll just post the entry: “Knowledge or Certainty — Physics and the clash of absolute knowledge, the oppressive state, and its misgivings realizing the result of its terrible outcome.” should be a classroom watching experience (along with Cosmos) for every schoolchild.
It is a cautionary tale of where certainty and especially scientific certainty can lead. It begins with him walking in a field and ends with him in the same field but it’s really a boggy area with standing water. He has brought you, with his reasoning and the camera to the field behind Auschwitz and shows you what dogma and certainty can bring us to. It is an amazing episode and message. It’s one of the most moving and cautionary messages I’ve ever seen:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jl2w3xYFHQ&w=480&h=390]
Thanks again Woosty=^..^
“Those worlds in space are as countless as all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. Each of those worlds is as real as ours and every one of them is a succession of incidents, events, occurrences which influence its future. Countless worlds, numberless moments, an immensity of space and time. And our small planet at this moment, here we face a critical branch point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants, it is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we could plunge our world into a time of darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilisation and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet.“
W=c,
The romantic version of that is “we are all stardust”.
The realistic version of that is “we are all nuclear waste byproducts”.
SB: I recall doing so but I can’t remember where. I have wondered if the whole Nancy/astrology thing
I was multi-tasking, poorly. Sorry
RE: Blouise, January 29, 2011 at 9:04 pm
{begin quote]
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.,
“Which con?”
===================================================
astrology
[end quote]
Artistic Humour may escape notice. Autistic People may escape notice. Notice?
Opinions vary, even when facts are in dispute.
I was describing many cons, for I con-stantly con-troll how cons and ex-cons affect me in terms of affect.
Me not you. Me opinion not you opinion?
Woosty=^..^
Thank you for the postings regarding Hypatia and Sagan, they are a couple of my favorite people and I enjoyed the video’s.