Utterly Shocking: First Episode of Cosmos Reboot Contains Unscientific Propositions

I was going to do an original post on this but Wintery Knight did it sooner and better. Quoting J.W. Wartick:

The depiction of the multiverse with little-to-no qualification was alarming, for there is much debate over whether there even is such a multiverse, and if there is, to what extent it may be called a multiverse. The portrayal within this episode was essentially a fictitious account being passed off without qualification as something a lot of people believe. The wording used was that “many… suspect” there is such a universe. Well yes, that may be true, but to what extent can we test for these other universes? What models predict them and why? I am uninterested in how many people hold to a belief; I am interested in whether that belief is true.

I personally don’t care if it’s true or not. I’d care, if we’re talking about a material sciences program, whether a proposition is actually scientific in nature. Or, if not, if it is properly presented as non-scientific.

There are other errors besides scientific ones, and more in keeping with the tradition of Sagan’s wishful-thinking hagiography of Hypatia^*. Quoting Casey Luskin:

During the first episode, Tyson devotes lengthy segments to promoting the old tale that religion is at war science, and strongly promotes the idea that religion opposes intellectual advancement.

One sec…going to ram my head through my Macbook screen here, then go buy a new one.

Okay, back.

I’ve punched this horse in the teeth many times before. I get the idea of needing a bad guy—I really do. It enhances your narrative and rallies people to your new idea. It’s the elephant gun for the modern marketing arsenal and we come to expect it from anything on TV. But the science vs. religion conflict is an Enlightenment myth and it’s the most egregious bit of misinformation that persists over the heads of general American media consumers like a dusty, crusty, un-touched-up halo from Masaccio’s Tribute Money.

From the Wikipedia entry on Draper-White’s conflict thesis (see also this essay on the subject from Alvin Plantinga):

Research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science, and that they have no differences with nonreligious groups in propensity to seek out scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[28][29] The Pew Center made similar findings and also noted that the majority of Americans (80–90%) strongly support scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual’s lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[30] Even strict creationists tend to express very favorable views towards science.[31] A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[32]

* I can’t entirely hate on Sagan. I read Pale Blue Dot and mostly loved it—loved it enough to use its title as a phrasal template for my new book’s title. I just don’t want to intellectually make out with the guy like some people do.