The Story of Science (2010– ) User Reviews

Very good attempt at the stated target.

[akicork · 8/10 · 13 August 2020]

Contrary to the previous two reviewers, I was very happy with this series. Its purpose was to present the development of western science in the context of history. For me, it achieved that target very well. I am familiar with the development of western science, but it was good to have it contextualised with the political, economic and social pressures of Florence, Padua, Amsterdam, Prague and the rest of Europe, as intellectual idols or struggling scientists did their bests to make their voices heard. I cannot agree with stigmata2004's comment on Michael Mosley. I heard him refer to his experience as a trainee doctor a couple of times - in every event it seemed to me to fit well with the narrative. I don't remember him at any time mentioning a PhD qualification, and nothing he said seemed to me to be self-aggrandising in any way. I don't know if he holds an MD (the most likely medical doctorate in the UK unless you're a surgeon, then you don't need it - you can also pretend you're not a Doctor if you got it - and call yourself "Mr" or "Mrs") but in any case, in the UK anyone graduating with an MB/ChB is called "Doctor": you don't need the higher degree. On the other hand, I strongly agree with stigmata2004's comments on the breadth of science outside the stated target. The mathematicians of the Middle East and India were sorting out fundamental theorems while my ancestors in the UK seem to have been scrabbling in the mud. So, I hope that the BBC manages to get the funds together for a follow-up (or two) covering the development of science in other areas of the globe. As to Central and South America, I confess that I know little of the Inca/Aztec/Olmec/Toltec civilisations, and it would be great to hear of their contributions to science.

Great Production Values, sub-par conception

[stigmata2004 · 4/10 · 16 April 2011]

The Story Of Science is a greatly produced piece of documentary about what exactly science has done for us throughout the ages to explain the phenomenon happening all around us. Citing questions such as: "What are we Really made of?", "What is out there?" or "What is the secret of life?". It definitely sounds interesting and at times the information provided is dazzling and insightful. But there are inconsistencies spread throughout the whole documentary: Firstly, the narrator and main speaker of the series is Michael J. Mosley who does his very best to boast his PHD certification in medicine which is really not necessary beyond once. But he seems to take pleasure in doing so in almost every episode. I found that to be annoying and it truly hurt his image in my mind. Secondly, the events and history which are depicted are all related to the western world as opposed to a more international approach and view. But Mr. Mosley doesn't seem to take into consideration the VAST amount of knowledge which has remained since the dawn of time from African, Asian or even south American people in their philosophies of the world and nature. It seems that the people responsible for the research didn't even bother to consider any other sources of scientific history than the western Europe/American ones which makes the episodes seem shallow, hurried and unfinished. Of course the plus of the show is how "personal" it gets about the life and achievements of some famous scientists it introduces and often shows their workspaces and tries to encourage the audience to go back in time and imagine what it felt like to be there when something fantastical was created and/or observed by a scientist. All in all, Great production values and music but poor narrative and concept and a very narrow point of view towards the subject matter.

poor concept development

[harryfleming-70222 · 2/10 · 24 August 2018]

When considering what are we made of, the show spends more time in whizz bang and spectacle rather than connecting up the development of concepts of chemistry. John Dalton is not mentioned and Mendeleevs periodic table of elements is missed altogether as is Moseleys modifications to atomic number. Atomic structure investigations by Rutherford is missed skipping directly to quantum superposition of electrons in the atom with no narrative of the conceptual development which led to the thinking. Very poor description of how we got to where we are.