Confusing narrative ...


The science bits were fine but the constant and repetitive excursions into tenuous and overly abstract connections into cultures which obviously have no value for science was just bizarre.

I felt this series was meddled with by BBC management with a political agenda to the point of being just wrong. For example with the topic of the history of heliocentric theory, omitting ancient greece's contribution and actually suggesting that ancient greece was solely into geocentrism.

Brian Cox's 'Wonders of ...' trilogy were absolutely awesome. But this one was mostly irritating with it's constant, repetitive indulgence into anti-science culture. Heck knows what that was about.

reply

[deleted]

I get that that many people may have gotten the impression of "anti-science", but I don't think this series were focused on science alone much like the 'wonders of...' were.

What was different about it, is the approach on the human collective capacity of gathering information and cultural development, passed on through generations of 'free-thinkers', that exists long before science blossomed to its current status from its predecessor 'knowledge' that came mostly from books and scriptures, made possible as generation upon generation of people discussed and developed art, music, 'natural philosophy' and religion.

If you think the narrow approach of scientists as rational almost mathematical thinkers, is part of the "liberal agenda" then I guess this one indeed differs from the other series.
For me, it encompassed all the other series into a more "philosophical" context, which in my honest opinion is the best kind of science there is.

Think it as a "glue" that bonded all the scattered bits and pieces of knowledge of the previous series with a philosophical discussion of the most primal of human instinct: The necessity many had for religion and arguably why is so difficult for the majority of people to live in awe with the world without the existence of the divine.

reply