Cosmos - ugh!

[fdrinca]

DH and I started watching Cosmos a few nights ago. I am surprised by how much I dislike it. I knew I found Neil DeGrasse Tyson arrogant and unlikeable before, but I find the entire presentation uninspiring and not very scientific. 

 

Anyone else? This is a well-received show, right? 

[JoJosMom]

DH and I started watching Cosmos a few nights ago. I am surprised by how much I dislike it. I knew I found Neil DeGrasse Tyson arrogant and unlikeable before, but I find the entire presentation uninspiring and not very scientific. 

 

Anyone else? This is a well-received show, right? 

 

I hate it, too.  So we must be right.  :laugh:

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

Really? We loved it.

[albeto.]

Not very scientific? 

 

:huh:

[Tsuga]

Tyson is great live but I don't like watching him recorded. It's not scientific in that a lot of what they present is presented ad hominem: look what SCIENCE discovered! So now we know it's true! Versus what I would prefer, which is the more scientific, humble attitude towards the universe--here is how little we know, here is what we think may be true and why, and here is where that contradicts our existing beliefs so isn't that cool, an area for discovery!

 

But that's Team Science nowadays. More cheering, less thinking. It's all so depressing. I love science, as in "I don't know, let's find out, well we can't be sure but let's hold this belief for the time being while we repeat the experiment". That's not marketable, however.

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt." ... Bertrand Russell.

 

Of course Russell was a philosopher and mathematician, so he dealt with truth, not best guesses--which is to say--not much. :D

 

​Interestlingly, however, if you watch Tyson off the cuff, in discussions, he does a lot better. He's really bright but when he does lectures it comes off less questioning. I got to see him live twice and I enjoyed it much more than when I watched him on TV. Also, he's much better read in paragraphs​ than in tweets. He just has a smartass mouth (I do too, which is why I don't tweet!!!) that doesn't jive with the ambiance necessary, IMO, to maintain a spirit of inquiry.

 

But he's a great cheerleader for the skeptics.

 

We'll still watch Cosmos but I much prefer reading Stephen Hawking to the kids as a read aloud. :)

[Χά�ων]

Not very scientific?

 

:huh:

This

[Eagle]

We LOVE Cosmos here!

[redsquirrel]

What were you expecting? How do you define 'unscientific' and what specific parts do you find unscientific?

 

I found some of it a bit 'cutesy' but those parts were aimed at young kids so it didn't really bother me. And Neil Tyson is not an actor, lol. He's about as stiff on camera as Carl Sagan was. Both great educators and communicators, but not so good with the acting, and I doubt either would disagree.

[Saddlemomma]

We haven't watched it yet, but now that it's on Netflix, I plan to try and work it into a quarter or semester of 8th grade science for DD.  However, due to some of the inaccuracies, one-sided philosophical agenda, and religion bashing, I plan to use the book, The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos, with the downloaded Cosmos Quest Study Guides to properly balance out the program.   I also hope to incorporate Good Science, Good Faith to use the same year as our Bible curriculum to complement our Cosmos study. At least this way, DD would get both sides of the argument.  She will then be able to determine, on her own, what she believes or which side provides the most compelling evidence to support their claims.

 

So, it's a toss-up between the above or the Big History Project for 8th grade.  I'll have to have DD weigh in on which way she'd like to go.

[Spryte]

Did you enjoy the original Cosmos?

 

We love the reboot. Then again, DS falls asleep listening to NDGT's Great Course Lecture Series - The Inexplicable Universe at night. We periodically head to NYC to visit the Hayden and marvel at the Scales of the Universe exhibit (sadly, we were just there and it's temporarily closed), and we've even entered the Star Talk lottery. So I guess we are fans. :)

 

NDGT isn't an actor. He's a scientist. So I don't expect his acting to be fantastic. He's better live, much like Carl Sagan was.

[fdrinca]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. 

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

[tm919]

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

I agree on the point about the audience. My dad won't watch it because he thinks something like this is bound to be quite superficial. 

 

We enjoyed it, but it's something that I wouldn't let my kids watch alone because there were too many places we had to stop and tell them that there is room for doubt. It doesn't really convey the amount of doubt there is in science, even though it continually tells you to question authority.

[elegantlion]

We loved it here too. 

[Incognito]

It has been very engrossing for our kids.  I agree that NDGT isn't particularly suave on camera, but it has been a very interesting overview of various (very big picture) ideas.  We aren't done yet, so perhaps it digs into more details later in the series?  I had that impression.  Even if it doesn't, we really like it.

 

ETA: We do stop and talk about what he says - but we do that with books and other videos too.  

[sunflowerlady]

I am enjoying the series and find him to be quite good as a host of the show. I have not perceived him as arrogant at all.

[Farrar]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. 

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

 

I see what you're saying, but it's science entertainment, not a science lecture or something that would be part of a serious science course after about middle school. I think Cosmos has two goals - to show that the world is pretty amazing and wonderful without anything else and to inspire people to read, listen, or watch other things that will have more. I think NdGT is thinking that there's plenty out there that has the more step by step detailed evidence that you're talking about but he's trying to make it feel more interesting and accessible to people to go seek for themselves.

[Spryte]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made.

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was.

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

I think perhaps it needs to be viewed as an overview, much like a 101 type course. You might use it as a jumping off point for further study, but I don't think it is intended to delve deep into details. I think its intent is more to create interest, to feed passions, and to inspire and start discussions and exploration.

[Greta]

I grew up watching Sagan's Cosmos over and over and over again! So my expectations were high, and the comparison probably not fair. But I was terribly disappointed. I watched two or maybe three episodes of the new version, and that was all I could stand. Sagan's version was beautiful, poetic, inspiring, while also being informative. I don't find the new version to be any of those things.

 

Edited for typo

[albeto.]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. 

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

 

Yes, it's based in fact. Fact as determined by the scientific method, as opposed to assumption and belief based in supposed divine revelation. This is a profound problem today. The generation that was my age when I was born was steeped in the Space Race, and science and technology were synonymous with education, intelligence, and civilization. Babies born today are born in a culture in which imagination is being demanded equal consideration to fact, and facts and opinions are indistinguishable by those who legislate public policy that affect us all. 

 

My impression of the series was one of assuring the modern generation that science can be trusted, it relies on objective methodology, and contrary to bizarre conspiracy theories, knowledge is accessible to all. 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
I removed the ad hominem attack. Please remain civil.

[redsquirrel]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. 

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

 

Then the show did its job. That is what you are supposed to want to do after watching. So, it was successful.

 

[Greta]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made.

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was.

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

Oh, well while I do have criticisms of the show, this honestly isn't one of them. I don't expect documentaries to go into detail explaining the evidence, I expect them to be entertaining and informative. When I want the nitty gritty evidence, I look to books or better yet journals.

[Greta]

Then the show did its job. That is what you are supposed to want to do after watching. So, it was successful.

 

Yes, I think a good documentary will whet one's appetite for more information.

[HRAAB]

We've enjoyed the show, however....I do like the original Cosmos better.  I wasn't terribly disappointed with the new one, but it did fall flat.  Still, my entire family are huge fans of NdGT, even my aspiring philosopher, although I want her to watch the original show.

[redsquirrel]

Oh man, I tried to watch the original but it was just so..... that spaceship.  It killed me on the new Cosmos as well, lol.

[kubiac]

I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal.

 

By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. 

 

If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!"

 

I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. 

 

Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is."

 

I think it was intended to be education through storytelling rather than Attenborough-style exposition.  

 

"Here is a cool play we have produced for you, and we're just gonna stash some key points in this speech, but please disregard it and mostly pay attention to this swashbuckling sword fight we have over here."

[fraidycat]

Not very scientific?

 

:huh:

Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific".

 

:huh: :huh:

[HRAAB]

Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific".

 

:huh: :huh:

 

Hmmm.....  Really?  Makes me wonder just who would be considered "very scientific".

[albeto.]

Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific".

 

:huh: :huh:

 

oh dear god help us all

 

 

But let's not talk about regulation for education at home, because loving one's kids is sufficient preparation for educating them.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Well, I remember not liking the original ( my dad watched and we had one TV ) so I didn't even try the new one. I generally like NDT snark though.

[albeto.]

Hmmm.....  Really?  Makes me wonder just who would be considered "very scientific".

 

God. He invented science. 

[fraidycat]

Hmmm..... Really? Makes me wonder just who would be considered "very scientific".

True story :)

[Spryte]

Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific".

 

:huh: :huh:

What on earth? This is serious?

[Slartibartfast]

We loved Cosmos here and watched it as a family. I don't generally permit television during dinner but we did eat dinner while watching Cosmos. :lol:

 

We also liked NdGT and IMO he did not seem remotely arrogant IMO. I find that to be a strange thing to say.

 

If one wants the science behind what is being discussed they can investigate themselves. I was aware of most of the content before I saw it on Cosmos but I was enjoying watching it with my children, I don't think my kids would have stayed interested had they started writing big long math proofs.

[Runningmom80]

Did you enjoy the original Cosmos?

 

We love the reboot. Then again, DS falls asleep listening to NDGT's Great Course Lecture Series - The Inexplicable Universe at night. We periodically head to NYC to visit the Hayden and marvel at the Scales of the Universe exhibit (sadly, we were just there and it's temporarily closed), and we've even entered the Star Talk lottery. So I guess we are fans. :)

 

NDGT isn't an actor. He's a scientist. So I don't expect his acting to be fantastic. He's better live, much like Carl Sagan was.

 

THANK YOU!!!!

[unsinkable]

DH and I started watching Cosmos a few nights ago. I am surprised by how much I dislike it. I knew I found Neil DeGrasse Tyson arrogant and unlikeable before, but I find the entire presentation uninspiring and not very scientific.

 

Anyone else? This is a well-received show, right?

Based on the title, I thought you were having gardening problems.

 

Or maybe, cocktail problems.

 

I was so so wrong. :D

[Spryte]

THANK YOU!!!!

You're welcome! And it's on Audible, too -bonus! Totally envious that you'll listen for the first time. :) DS and I can recite parts. Love it.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I didn't have a issue with the science, but I do find NdGT unlikeable and I haaaaaaated the animation sequences (and even more, the faux-mercials where they patted themselves on the back for said animation when it originally aired). I also didn't like the anti-religious sentiment. It's a SCIENCE show--leave the snide religious jabs out please.

But I did find it informative, and I loved that they highlighted some lesser known female scientists that have been ignored previously.

[zoobie]

Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific".

 

:huh: :huh:

Is the nutter lady on YouTube who went off on the Field Museum "very scientific" instead? ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't have a issue with the science, but I do find NdGT unlikeable and I haaaaaaated the animation sequences (and even more, the faux-mercials where they patted themselves on the back for said animation when it originally aired). I also didn't like the anti-religious sentiment. It's a SCIENCE show--leave the snide religious jabs out please.

But I did find it informative, and I loved that they highlighted some lesser known female scientists that have been ignored previously.

 

 

NdGT  stated when certain well-known scientists were very religious and I thought that was done in a respectful manner. I am a religious person but I didn't notice religious jabs.

[Farrar]

What on earth? This is serious?

 

If you read toward end of the thread she linked, I guess someone tried to say that NDGT wasn't "scientifically literate" and she had quite an eyeroll at it. So I think she's being slightly snarky.

[Farrar]

NdGT  stated when certain well-known scientists were very religious. I am a religious person but I didn't notice religious jabs.

 

I didn't find it anti-religion either. However, it made clear that the Christian church was oppressive and anti-science at many times in history, holding back ideas and thinkers. And the whole theme of the show is that science as the basic explanation for things is beautiful and wondrous without the need for mysticism or religious explanations. It was like a first two seasons of Doctor Who episode at times. I don't think that's anti-religion per se - there's no reason that *both* religion and science can't be wondrous and fulfilling in a person's life and as you point out, Cosmos brings to light several scientists for whom that was the case. However, I get why some people find that message threatening.

[Forget-Me-Not]

NdGT stated when certain well-known scientists were very religious and I thought that was done in a respectful manner. I am a religious person but I didn't notice religious jabs.

Thats true. I had forgotten about that. I don't know which episode it was, but there was one thing in particular that he said that really rubbed me the wrong way. But I'm also probably mixing in what I know of NdGT outside the series too :D

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't find it anti-religion either. However, it made clear that the Christian church was oppressive and anti-science at many times in history, holding back ideas and thinkers. And the whole theme of the show is that science as the basic explanation for things is beautiful and wondrous without the need for mysticism or religious explanations. It was like a first two seasons of Doctor Who episode at times. I don't think that's anti-religion per se - there's no reason that *both* religion and science can't be wondrous and fulfilling in a person's life and as you point out, Cosmos brings to light several scientists for whom that was the case. However, I get why some people find that message threatening.

 

It is true that the church was oppressive and anti-science at times and it did hold back ideas and thinkers. That's a fact. The Vatican even released an apology to Galileo.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html

 

 

[redsquirrel]

Netflix is streaming Neil deGrasse Tyson's "The Inexplicable Universe" You just have to search for his name and it comes up. It is 6 episodes

[EmseB]

I didn't find it anti-religion either. However, it made clear that the Christian church was oppressive and anti-science at many times in history, holding back ideas and thinkers.

Which is not true, at least not across the board.

 

ETA: I can't comment on anything beyond the first episode, but the oversimplified version of the Bruno story about how he was burned at the stake for science was really telling about what approach the show was going to take. No one should ever be burned at the stake for anything, but claiming he was because he was anti science is way, way simplistic and funny to use for that illustration considering what Bruno was actually doing.

[Slartibartfast]

Which is not true, at least not across the board.

 

It is true. Just because the church was ok with Issac Newton doesn't mean other Scientists were not oppressed and now some see Newton as a heretic.

 

Cosmos did not say anything on that issue that was not factual.

[Guest]

Yes, it's based in fact. Fact as determined by the scientific method, as opposed to assumption and belief based in supposed divine revelation. This is a profound problem today. The generation that was my age when I was born was steeped in the Space Race, and science and technology were synonymous with education, intelligence, and civilization. Babies born today are born in a culture in which imagination is being demanded equal consideration to fact, and facts and opinions are indistinguishable by those who legislate public policy that affect us all.

 

My impression of the series was one of assuring the modern generation that science can be trusted, it relies on objective methodology, and contrary to bizarre conspiracy theories, knowledge is accessible to all.

I might be missing your intention and tone, but this isn't a very kind or thoughtful post.

 

Your view of the series sounds quite religious indeed, if the job of science is reassuring people, making them trust (instead of causing them to question, test, and question more), and live by methodology instead of keeping their eyes on the macro. Scientific study and research is wonderful and has yielded life saving, life enhancing discovery for humanity. But it isn't salvation and it isn't an end of itself.

 

To reduce man's deepest longings, puzzles, and struggles to what can be tested and evidenced is quite arrogant - it assumes the supremacy of man's intellect and methods above all else.

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed quoted insult to another board member, and response to it.

[hornblower]

 

To reduce man's deepest longings, puzzles, and struggles to what can be tested and evidenced is quite arrogant - it assumes the supremacy of man's intellect and methods above all else.

 

 

 

But it's also not kind to affix the label arrogant to people who believe in supremacy of human intellect and scientific methods.

Many posters do not believe in any higher power.  We really do think our longings, puzzles and struggles can (& should be) be tested and understood using logic and intellectual inquiry.

 

However, for me, the jury is out on organisms/species/aliens with higher intellect than ours.

[EmseB]

 I've never understood this accusation, but i see it often. How does a view of science become religious? There's no worship or belief that it's somehow holy or infallible, right? Lots of things can reassure people, make them feel trusted, etc that no one, as far as I know, is labeled as being a religion.  In my opinion, it's a lame comeback from those who fear losing some sort of battle, like it's got to be God vs Capital S! I find it to be a very silly, loosey goosey retort.

 

About Bruno:

http://www.amazon.com/Giordano-Bruno-Philosopher-Ingrid-Rowland/dp/0809095246

From Publishers Weekly

You sometimes hear the name Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) invoked as a prequel to the life of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). These two natural philosophers, countrymen of the Italian peninsula, stood ready to shove the Earth from its ancient resting place and set it in orbit around the Sun. Though a rotating, revolving Earth challenged common sense and flew in the face of received wisdom, still they both embraced the idea—at their peril. The difference is that Bruno died for his beliefs (tied to a stake and set on fire in a public square in Rome), while Galileo recanted before the Inquisition and lived to advanced old age under house arrest. Legend connects their destinies, reducing Bruno's awful immolation to a cautionary tale that warns Galileo against too vigorous a defense of the dangerous new astronomy. But, as Ingrid Rowland makes clear in her probing, thoughtful biography, Bruno's support for the Sun-centered cosmos paled next to the rest of his crimes. He was a true heretic by the Catholic Church's definition, for he doubted the divinity of Jesus, the virginity of Mary and the transubstantiation of the Communion wafer into the body of Christ. Protestants—among whom Bruno lived for a time in Switzerland, France, Germany and England—also branded him a heretic, since he was, after all, a professed priest of the Dominican order. Bruno managed, in the span of his 52 years, to be excommunicated twice—from the Calvinist Church as well as the Catholic. Rowland identifies Bruno in her subtitle as philosopher and heretic. Her full text rounds out the list of his many other deserved epithets, including poet, playwright, private tutor, professor of sacred theology, linguist, master of the art of memory, even copy editor. As a philosopher, Bruno went far beyond the Sun-centered cosmology of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543). Apparently the first man to envision infinity, Bruno posited an endlessly renewed and recreated universe. Its limitless expanses of space knew no particular center, but contained innumerable suns, circled by a plurality of earths—and every one of them inhabited. Rowland's own translations of Bruno's many works, including On the Immense and the Numberless, add immeasurably to her portrait of him. In 1581 he described himself as having the look of a lost soul... for the most part you'll see him irritated, recalcitrant, and strange, content with nothing, stubborn as an old man of eighty, skittish as a dog that has been whipped a thousand times, a weepy onion eater. He came into the world to light a fire, Rowland acknowledges of her subject. That he did, and in the end it consumed him. 8 pages of b&W illus. (Aug.)Dava Sobel, the author of Longitude, Galileo's Daughter and The Planets, is at work on a play about Copernicus.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

..........................................................

Sounds like an all around rascal, doesn't he!

 

I think science becomes "religious" when people are told to accept anything discovered via the scientific method as some how infallible and not to be questioned.  I think the show Cosmos, in particular, asks people to simply receive the wisdom bestowed upon them by great thinkers because those thinkers hold a title as studiers of science.  People here are saying the show was designed to get people to go investigate, but that's not how much of the information was presented at all, at least in the episode I watched.  I have the same beef with the "I f'in Love Science" meme's that float around.  It's not encouraging investigation or free-thinking at all, it asking people to accept what is being said at face value because Science.  Many, many things have been discovered via scientific method and conclusions drawn from those discoveries, and then later those conclusions, or even the discoveries themselves are found to be in error because the human being applying the method missed a critical variable that may not have even been known to them at that time.  Or they simply made a mistake.

 

As for Bruno, yes, he was an interesting man.  But the cartoon on the show said he was killed by the church for saying that stars were suns that had planets.  Honestly, I think that was probably the least of the church's issues with the man.  Was he killed for free-thinking?  Sure.  His views about coperican astronomy?  I don't think that is as plain as the cartoon made it seem on the show.  And if you're going to do a show about science, then accuracy and not simplifying things to fit a pre-determined narrative should probably be top of the list of how to go about it.  At least IMO.

[Guest]

I wasn't calling anyone arrogant - the belief of man's supreme reasoning and ability is what I consider arrogant, because it places man in the highest authority and knowledge over all, despite man repeatedly proving his fallability in these areas. Claiming superiority of skill and understanding AND moral relativism, all at once, is a plain contradiction. Overcome this appeal with 'science' as the authority is equally weak. That was my point. The appeal to science and reason as supreme places man in the place of God, essentially. At least those who appeal to God aren't elevating their own intellect and skills above those of everyone else, but placing *themselves* under authority and relying on a morality outside of their own feelings and conclusions.

 

There are limits to what can be proven - especially when dealing with things outside of our ability to observe either by scale or time. So many who appeal to science as authority do not accept the limits of the method and instead extrapolate beyond what can be proven and then declare everyone else as the ones taking things on faith. That gets highly annoying after a few dozen times. Religion and scientific rigor are not mutually exclusive.