Best Show on Television

Planet of the Skeptics

Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey

What makes a good television show? Is it the beauty of the cinematography? The show's premise? Good writing? The characters? That we feel we are learning something new, or gaining a new understanding of something we thought we knew? 

Is it the combination of these elements that leaves us fascinated and tuning in for more?

CNN, states "Experts say that sometimes, a hot show expresses something percolating at the surface of the culture's subconscious -- and hits the air at the golden moment the mainstream is poised to accept an element of the encroaching fringe."1

Well I have found just that TV show, and I am currently fascinated by it. Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, hosted by Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson. In my humble opinion, this is the best and most important show on television.

Before I explore and pour too much adulation on this show, lets look at how this show came about. 

Cosmos originally aired in September 1980 with 13 episodes. It was hosted by Dr Carl Sagan.

IMDB summarizes the show as:

"Dr. Sagan describes the universe in a way that appeals to a mass audience, by using Earth as a reference point, by speaking in terms intelligible to non-scientific people, by relating the exploration of space to that of the Earth by pioneers of old, and by citing such Earth legends as the Library of Alexandria as metaphors for space-related future events. Among Dr. Sagan's favorite topics are the origins of life, the search for life on Mars, the infernal composition of the atmosphere of Venus and a warning about a similar effect taking place on Earth due to global pollution and the "greenhouse effect", the lives of stars, interstellar travel and the effects of attaining the speed of light, the danger of mankind technologically self-destructing, and the search, using radio technology, for intelligent life in deep space."

Dr Sagan sparked the imagination of a generation and fanned the flames of scientific curiosity. But Dr Sagan did more than just spark this interest for one individual. Upon hearing that Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a high school student from the Bronx, was considering pursuing a career in Astronomy, Dr Sagan sent this letter:

And their communication and mutual admiration would continue for years. It should then come as no surprise that Dr Tyson, would end up on a board of the Planetary Society, the organization that Sagan co-founded. On this board was Ann Druyan (widow of the late Dr Carl Sagan). Ms Druyan had been thinking of resurrecting the show shortly after Dr Sagan died. With Dr Tyson's 

Another notable name attached to the show as an executive producer is Seth MacFarlane (of Family Guy fame).

Some may consider Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, as a sequel to the original series by Dr Sagan, but I would lean more towards calling this a re-visitation of the ideas and inspiration that the original show generated. 

Here are some mind-blowing quotes and images from the new series - and only 2 episodes have aired so far (images and quotes courtesy of website The Frisky2):

“This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adherent to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiments and observations. Build on those ideas that pass the test. Reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours.”

 “Science works on the frontier of knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There’s no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this, will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began.” 

  

“The Earth took one hell of a beating in its first billion years, fragments of orbiting debris collided and coalesced, until they snowballed to form our Moon.”

“Some claim evolution is just a theory. As if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience.”

“Every person you’ve ever heard of lies right in there. All those kings and battles, migrations and inventions, wars and loves, every thing in the history books happened here in the last 14 seconds of the cosmic calendar.”

There's a very simple reason the original series scored 9.3/10 on imdb.com and this new version has scored even better at 9.6/10... It's that good!!!

*If you are interested in watching the show, check it out here or at www.cosmosontv.com

Footnotes

____________

1. CNN. What makes a TV show a lasting hit?
Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/06/sprj.caf03.staying.power/
Retrieved 22 March 2014

2. The Frisky. 16 Mind-Blowing Quotes From “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” (So Far)

Retrieved from: http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-03-19/16-mind-blowing-quotes-from-cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey-so-far/

Retrieved 22 March 2014

Additional Resources

__________________

Moyers and Company. Neil deGrasse Tyson on Religion in Science Class.

Retrieved from: http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/16/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-religion-in-science-class/

Retrieved 22 March 2014

The Raw Story. Creationists demand equal airtime on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ to provide ‘balance’

Retrieved from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/21/creationists-demand-equal-airtime-on-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-to-provide-balance/

Retrieved 22 March 2014

The Genesis Hypothesis | Chapter 1

Planet of the Skeptics

Genesis Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

1 - 2: What about the other planets? What is this "heaven"? How can earth have be created without form and void? If there is no form to the earth, how can a "spirit" move across the face of the waters?    3 - 4: God speaks light into existence and then separates it from darkness. (The existence of darkness is dependent on the absence of light. How can God separate something that's existence depends on it's separation from the other?) Why is an all knowing being patting himself on the back for his creation? 5: *Day 1 complete Light and Darkness created and separated from each other. 6 - 8: God needed a way to separate the waters so there would be earth based water and sky based water. God created a solid divider called Heaven. So Heaven is in between the sky-based waters and earth-based waters? 8: *Day 2 complete Heaven created (which he was to have created already in the first verse) and uses it to separate the waters above Heaven from the waters below Heaven. 9 - 10: God gathers all the waters from the land into one place and calls them "the Seas". (If it’s all gathered in one place, why is called the Seas rather than the Sea?) God gave the dry land permission to appear, which he called Earth. "God saw that it was good." – I  get it! You make something and you are happy with yourself for it.    11: Plants created (trees,herbs, grass,etc) 12: In case you skipped the last verse, plants were created. He thought he did a good job again. (This is starting to become narcissistic.) 13: *Day 3 complete Plants created. 14 - 18: God created stars and placed them in Heaven, to provide light to Earth. One Light for day and one for Night. Note 1: Scientific Fact: moonlight comes from the same source as daylight! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight Note 2: Stars are beyond the water in the sky. In fact the closest one - the Sun - is between 146.5 - 149.5 million kms away. This distance is known as 1 astronomical unit or 1au. Note 3: If the Earth had no light until the fourth day, how did the plants survive? Scientific Fact:  Plants require photosynthesis. 19: *Day 4 complete Stars created. Light and darkness separated, again. 20: God commands that the sea creatures that hath life be brought forth from the waters and birds to fly in the "open, solid layer of heaven".  Note 1: If God hasn't created any creatures yet, how can those already alive to come forth from the waters. And the fowls in the sky? Note 2: So Heaven isn’t Heaven but the sky? Plausible if not for the previous assertion that stars were placed in Heaven?!? 21 - 22: God created birds and sea creatures “after their kind”. God saw that it was good." This narcissism is really annoying. Wikipedia defines Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) as "...a personality disorder in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity." 23: *Day 5 complete God created sea creatures and birds. 24 - 25: God created land animals. He made them after their own kind (Wait. If he created them, how can they be made after their own kind? How can the initial animal be modeled after itself?). 26 - 28: God makes man/woman in his image. Shouldn't humans be invisible then? I guess this explains the narcissism of humankind. God commands that humans should have lots of sex and make lots of babies. He further orders that humans restore and control the earth, as well as having control over all other creatures on earth. Is this why some people don't feel the need to have empathy towards non-human animals? 29 - 30: God tells man and woman that they could eat of all the trees and herbs that bear seeds. That they should treat it as though it is meat. God tells humans (who are new to earth and have never eaten a thing) that they can eat the fruit and plants. Since they have no concept of food God explains that it is like eating meat? 31: *Day 6 complete God creates all land animals, including humans.

Change the Mascot

Planet of the Skeptics Change the Mascot

[Preamble]

 In the interest of full disclosure, let me state upfront, my opinion on this matter changed drastically upon watching the videos included and reading more into the topic at hand. I suppose this goes back to my previous post on skepticism. To have a thorough opinion on the matter, one should be skeptical of what they believe, and research further to learn more. Doing so, will serve to educate oneself on the issues and broaden their understanding.

The Washington Redskins, are a team steeped in history. The Washington Redskins history begins in 1932 as the Boston Braves. A year later they were renamed the Boston Redskins, and in 1937 the team was relocated to Washington. The team’s storied history includes 23 playoff appearances, 13 Division Championships, 5 Conference Championships, and 5 League Championships (3 Super Bowl and 2 pre AFL-NFL merger).The Washington Redskins name and logo was officially registered in 1967.1 The Redskins were the first team in the NFL with an official marching band and also the first team to have a fight song, "Hail to the Redskins"2.

A sports club with this much history is bound to have fans and stakeholders with strong feelings and attachment to the team. I have no stake in the team, its name or history. I am approaching this solely from an outsider, objective point of view.

There has been growing controversy recently, regarding numerous sports teams whos logos and team names are deemed offensive and culturally insensitive. Currently leading the charge is the Washington Redskins. The Redskins is a name that many American Indians find to be insensitive, and to some a racial slur.

This brilliant video, entitled “Proud To Be” (click here or above) led me down a path of looking further into this issue. If you do nothing else, and read no further, I ask you only to watch the video!

Merriam-Webster defines the word as “usually offensive: American Indian”2.  Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines the word as “offensive old-fashioned for a Native-American”3. Oxford Dictionaries defines it as a dated or offensive word for American Indian ⁴. Webster’s 1913 Dictionary defines the word as “A common appellation for a North American Indian; - so called from the color of the skin. It is now considered pejorative by some persons of North American Indian heritage.”5.

Slate.com has an interesting article on the history of the word redskin (click here)

There are also those who don’t consider the name offensive. Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, says “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement,  the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”6. Roy Hawthorne – vice president of the Navajo Code Talkers Association – on a trip to an NFL game paid for by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, stated the team name is a symbol of loyalty and courage.7

In a letter to season ticket holders8, Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder addresses the controversy. He outlines his history with the franchise since his childhood, the team’s history – outlining how 5 members of the original team were ‘Native Americans’ – and stating “The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.” Mr Snyder continues by asserting that the team logo was designed in consultation with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (side note – you should read the response letter from the Red Cloud Indian School click here). He proceeds to outline two studies, one of Native Americans who do not find offense to the name, and another of an Associated Press Survey that states the team should not change their name. Judge for yourself, but to me, the letter seems to lean more on the team’s history, than on genuine concern for the feelings of those offended. In fact within the letter, Mr Snyder states that he respects the feelings of those who are offended by the team name, but he hopes such individuals also try to respect what the name means. He states he thinks "of the Washington Redskins traditions and pride" and further that "we cannot ignore our 81 year history, or the strong feelings of most of our fans"8.

Though I can appreciate his personal feelings and perspective – I have stated previously I approach this as an outsider, of the sports team and American Indian perspectives – I can’t help but consider Dr. Friedman’s study The Harmful Psychological Effects of the Washington Football Mascot9, when investigating this issue. In his Executive Summary, Dr. Friedman states that “the ongoing use of a dictionary-defined racial slur above the repeated objections of the Native American community poses serious risk for negative mental health consequences to Native Americans…The Washington mascot is uniquely destructive because it not only perpetuates the stereotypical and outdated caricature portrayed by many Native American mascots, but also promotes and justifies the use of a dictionary-defined racial slur.9” Dr Friedman further outlines how Native American populations present with the highest levels of psychological distress of any other group in the nation and that anything that causes additional stress and increased suffering, must be considered a public health priority. Dr. Friedman defines his research as drawing upon “a body of scientific study that provides support to the assertion that the Washington organization's continued use of its mascot represents a serious stressor to the Native American population.” He also makes note of several professional organizations – including the American Psychological Association and the American

Sociological Association – who agree that there are harmful effects associated with the ongoing usage of Native American mascots for sports teams. I will not go over his entire report; you are welcome to read it for yourself (click here).

Momentum is shifting. Recently the Houston Independent School District, one of the largest in the United States, has moved to implement a “policy to stop using mascot names such as ‘Redskins’ that reference Native American culture and have been called offensive by advocacy groups.”10. Last September in the Ottawa area, the Nepean Redskins youth football team agreed to change their name, stating they understood it is offensive to some, and thus divisive to the community11. Even U.S. President Obama has chimed in on the controversy. In an interview last October, the President stated: “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team — even if they've had a storied history — was offending a sizable group of people, I'd think about changing it.12”

Watch the President Obama interview (click here or above)

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, has called upon the National Football League, State and Federal government entities in the U.S. to take any and all appropriate measures while taking special care to avoid infringing on First Amendment Rights, to dissuade the team from continuing with its current name and logo13.

An online designer blog ran a contest for designers to recreate a logo for the NFL team. They received nearly 2000 entries, of which the winning design can be found online (click here). The winning suggestion is an idea that finds its roots in the town it represents and America’s pride in its military history. Though, it could still be seen as having American Indian references.

I’m only left with the persistent thought…Would this controversy still be unresolved if a team were called the Washington Blackskins, Washington Whiteskins, or Colorado Crackers. Worse still, what if we had teams called the New Orleans Negroes, the Arizona Wetbacks, or even the Mississippi Klansmen? Would society consider these team names acceptable?

I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT! 

So why not, consider that the name and mascot are offending a sizable group and change them!

Footnotes

1. Washington Redskins. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins
Retrieved 03 February 2014

2. Washington Redskins. Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Retrieved from Pro Football Hall of Fame: http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?TeamAlias=washington-redskins&print=y

Retrieved 03 February 2014

3. Redskin. Merriam-Webster.
Retrieved from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin 
Retrieved 03 February 2014

4. Redskin. Cambridge Dictionaries Online.
Retrieved from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/redskin?q=redskin

Retrieved 03 February 2014

5. Redskin. Webster-Dictionary.
Retrieved from Webster Dictionary Online:  http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/redskin

Retrieved 03 February 2014

6. Associated Press

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur?

Retrieved from CBS DC: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Retrieved 03 February 2014.

7. Fox News

Navajo Code Talker says Redskins name not derogatory

Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/11/28/navajo-code-talker-says-redskins-name-not-derogatory/

Retrieved 03 February 2014.

8. Snyder, Dan

Letter from Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder to fans

Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-washington-redskins-owner-dan-snyder-to-fans/2013/10/09/e7670ba0-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

Retrieved 03 February 2014.

9. Friedman, Michael A., Ph.D (2013)
The Harmful Psychological Effects of the Washington Football Mascot
Retrieved from Change The Mascot: http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DrFriedmanReport.pdf

Retrieved 03 February 2014.

10. Loreanz, Andrea (2013)

Houston school board votes to stop using Native American mascot names

Retrieved from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/13/us-usa-texas-redskins-idUSBRE9BC03T20131213

Retrieved on 04 February 2014.

11. CBC News

Nepean Redskins to change controversial name, logo

Retrieved from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/nepean-redskins-to-change-controversial-name-logo-1.1860795

Retrieved on 04 February 2014.

12. Jackson, David

Obama: Redskins should ponder name change

Retrieved from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/05/obama-associated-press-interview-washington-redskins/2927351/

Retrieved on 04 February 2014.

13. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2013)
Resolution on the Washington, D.C. Football Team Name
Retrieved from Change The Mascot: http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Leadership-Conference-on-Civil-and-Human-Rights-Resolution.pdf
Retrieved 03 February 2014.

Additional References

National Congress of the American Indians  (2014)

Proud To Be [Video]

Retrieved from Upworthy: http://www.upworthy.com/the-nfl-would-never-let-this-ad-air-on-the-super-bowl-so-were-gonna-show-you-it-its-important?c=ufb1  
Retrieved 03 February 2014.

Skepticism

Planet of the Skeptics
Skepticism

Skepticism

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), a peer reviewed site of Doctors and Professors, outlines that “The term “skeptic” derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration.¹” The online encyclopedia further defines Contemporary Skepticism by stating “Philosophical views are typically classed as skeptical when they involve advancing some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.²”

(To learn more about IEP click here)

So why am I talking about skepticism? Skepticism is, in my opinion,  THE KEY component to education. Merriam-Webster.com defines education as “the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools.³” That is to say education is about learning. Learning is something we should all strive to do on a daily basis. Skepticism is the next step and key component to education/learning. As I previously outlined, skepticism involves examination and inquiry into claims that are taken for granted. We should be skeptical about all claims! We should seek to examine and inquire further into anything we are told is truth. If truth is claimed we should want to know whether or not it is, in fact, true. This is especially important when claims of truth, seek to advance a position or indicate how we should live our lives. We are doing ourselves a disservice to not further inquire, to not question and examine what we are told.

If someone proclaims that any virgin raped, must marry their rapist, if the rapist pays the victim’s father $400 for this dishonour committed – would you accept this truth? Or would you have questions? Would you accept that because others say this is the way things were, it was a different time?

I sincerely doubt ANYONE still reading this would be satisfied without further examination and inquiry. You would be skeptical that the proclaimed truth is evident, logical and should remain as is.

I simply assert that you should be this skeptical for all truth claims. Some will reveal themselves as false much easier than others. Just as, some will reveal themselves as truth much easier. But, we should always strive for truth. We should not accept claims of truth for the unknown. We should seek to move ourselves forward. Forward through real truths. Truths that seek to connect us on a human level with each other. Truths that when left unproven, we do not cling to! Truths that we seek to put up to the challenge of skeptical review. 

This is the education I want for our children. 

Truth matters! 

Our future depends on it!

(Click here for a more thought provoking article on why we must always be skeptical)

1. Ancient Greek Skepticism” ” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 31 January 2014.

2. “Contemporary Skepticism” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 31 January 2014.

3. Education” Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 31 January 2014.