There is a reason why most natural scientist are not historians, and
“Science. A history”, is one of them. Although I started out enjoying this work
very much, learning along the way, slowly but surely the work started to bore
me. It reads like biography in that it is extremely factual and to the point.
In short, it gives you a whole lot of what and how, but it lacks, to my mind, a
detailed discussion as to the all-important, why?
Included in this work, is a focus on all the important natural scientists of Europe and the US. The stories of Einstein, Newton, Galileo (his was the most amazing to me), Darwin and many others. I remember what he wrote about Copernicus, which I found fascinating, him being a philosopher and not a scientist really. The development of chemistry, the persecutions of the church, and many many stories and mini-biographies are included.
I can recommend this work as a reference guide. It is a good book, but boring. Boring like the most boring thing I have ever read. To me the difference between a good book and a great book is if I can remember what the author’s point was. As in, what is the author’s impression about what had happened? To be honest this book reads more like a report. It’s just my opinion but it is MY opinion. I have great admiration for the authors knowledge of his subject, but I expected too much of this work, I suppose.
Included in this work, is a focus on all the important natural scientists of Europe and the US. The stories of Einstein, Newton, Galileo (his was the most amazing to me), Darwin and many others. I remember what he wrote about Copernicus, which I found fascinating, him being a philosopher and not a scientist really. The development of chemistry, the persecutions of the church, and many many stories and mini-biographies are included.
I can recommend this work as a reference guide. It is a good book, but boring. Boring like the most boring thing I have ever read. To me the difference between a good book and a great book is if I can remember what the author’s point was. As in, what is the author’s impression about what had happened? To be honest this book reads more like a report. It’s just my opinion but it is MY opinion. I have great admiration for the authors knowledge of his subject, but I expected too much of this work, I suppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment