Skip to main content

The New "Cosmos"

File:Carl Sagan Planetary Society.JPGNeil DeGrasse Tyson is the astronomer who is now explaining the "Cosmos" to the lay audience in the revived television series of that name.


Ah, the fond memories that name brings back. Of the original Carl Sagan series, I mean of course, which in 1980 became the most widely watched television series in the history of US public television.


Sagan's Cosmos also coincided with something called Battle of the Network Stars, the sort of thing that today would be called "reality programming." It was a series of sporting or pseudo-sporting events involving established personalities. In the 1980 season, the ABC team included Scott Baio, CBS's team included Gregory Harrison, and NBC's, Pamela Helmsley. If those don't sound like top tier stars to you: the feeling is natural. These were TV personalities who could use the additional exposure that the silly games would get them.


All of this is simply an excuse to go a little further down memory lane and recall a brilliant SCTIV spoof on Battle, called Battle of the PBS Stars. One of the teams was captained by William F. Buckley (Firing Line was still on the air in those days) and the other was captained by, you guessed it, Carl Sagan.


Series regular Dave Thomas played Sagan, with special emphasis on the pronunciation of the letter "b" as in "billion."


At one point there is a football game between the two teams, and Buckley's team nrings in some heavy-hitting ringers. They run head-on into Sagan, and then you see a doll presumably filled with helium and representing Sagan floating up into the sky.


I believe it was Eugene Levy who, as host Howard Cosell, delivered the punchline as 'Sagan' disappeared from sight. He told us we shouldn't be sad about Sagan's loss, because now "he's up in the cosmos, where he always wanted to be."


I'm working from memory here, because I'm too lazy to look these things up, so that account may not be entirely accurate. Still ... Neil Tyson is treading on sacred ground. Best of luck to him.









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers