Customer Rating:  
Summary: Not a contender...
Comment: Not thorough enough to replace an encyclopedia, not hip enough to replace the Whole Earth Catalog and not entertaining enough to replace the Guinness Book of World Records.
The dilution of the National Geographic name continues...
Customer Rating:
Summary: excellent book of knowledge
Comment: it is one of the excellent books i selected for my teenage child for gaining overall knowledge.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The Knowledge Book: Amateurish in the Extreme
Comment: The Knowledge Book is remarkably and variously un-knowledgeable.
Little things: grammar, punctuation, diction, and sentence structure are very shaky indeed. For example, we learn (p. 74) that Lisbon had the misfortune to be hit by a tsunami and consequently was, not just submerged, but "submerged UNDER WATER" [my emphases]. For example (p. 106), we learn that, "when THEY hatch, THE PARENTS feed the chicks . . . ." [my emphases: who's hatching?] We encounter this sort of carelessness on almost every page. Also, the wealth of spell-checker betrayals demonstrates that the writers don't know and maybe don't care about the meanings of the words they use ("affect" and "effect," e.g., are obviously deep mysteries to them). As a result of this general sloppiness, the reader is greeted by redundancies and ambiguities and instances of vagueness on nearly every page, and must try to ignore this gnat-swarm as he or she slogs along.
Medium-sized things: mistakes in matters of fact and matters of logic abound. For example, we learn (p. 108) that ALL mammals bear live young but that SOME (the monotremes) do not. For example, we learn (p. 114) that panda bears are predators although they are herbivores. For example, we learn (p. 66) that "EVERY SINGLE THING [my emphasis] that occurs throughout Earth history leaves its traces behind in rocks." This last pronouncement, were it not almost too stupid to comment on, might earn a sharp contradiction by any competent paleontologist; the fossil record is anything but comprehensive and complete.
Big things: many points of information which should be there aren't; conversely, many points of absurd nano-trivia, which should not have been included here (or maybe anywhere), were. For example, nowhere is there mention of Eratosthenes of Alexandria, the genius who first computed the Earth's circumference. On the other hand, we learn (p. 503), about "Diddy's business ventures into fashion and television." Is this something that we "need to know to get by in the 21st Century?" (Permit me to doubt it.) Or is this and much else besides mere pathetic attempts at trendiness? You decide.
Really, this fat slick volume is a carnival of blunders. One would have expected better of the National Geographic Society. Anyone who had anything to do with the production of this book--and especially the editorial team--should be ashamed to have been part of such a botched endeavour. The book does, however, illustrate one important bit of 21st Century knowledge, and that is our currently declining interest in the written word.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Visual and information feast with a few caveats QUESTION EVERYTHING..EVEN NAT GEO!
Comment: I was wowed by this book, however, a few things worth mentioning.. it really falls short on history. Of all the 'knowledge' that is contained in this book, history takes a distant last. Since world history is such a HUGE topic, they sum it up in ten pages in the beginning of the book that is in TIME LINE format along with a very brief narrative on top.
The other aspect which I didn't appreciate, although doesn't surprise me a bit is National Geographic's complete and utter attempt to force their world view on the unsuspecting reader. Jesus is identified as one who said was a just a messenger from God but some Jews thought he was the messiah. I don't want to get into a religious debate, but this is just not true. There are many direct and indirect claims of Christ's divinity using his own words. Mark 14 60-62 - During His trial, Jesus acknowledged that He was the Christ, the Son of God. Just because Nat.Geo doesn't want to believe it, doesn't change what the historical claims of Jesus are.
Yet again another attempt at Christian relics in the book, is a photo of the famous Shroud of Turin (the photo showing Christ's face, believed to possibly be a remnant of the resurrection). The photo is shown with a caption underneath it saying, the Shroud of Turin was thought to be an ancient cloth but carbon dating proved that it was made in the 1300's... and they stop there. This is half the story National Geographic and you know it.
The rest of the story is that because of a fire to the cloth, the carbon dating was inaccurate. Without that critical piece of information, they have intentionally misrepresented the truth. This is a blatant example of scholarly deceit. For more information on why the carbon dating gave a false date see http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
"On December 4, 1532 The chapel at Chambery, France, where the shroud was housed, caught fire which raged around the silver reliquary where the shroud was kept. The heat was so intense that some of the silver melted and dripped onto the folded shroud."
Nat Geo is a wonderful endeavor but they certainly have an anti-God agenda and I detest them for it. I love their documentaries on anything but religious matters. They are the antithesis of scientific inquiry in this matter. They contradict history, reason and the facts to support their worldview on a seemingly 'neutral' and 'scientific' platform.. question everything!
These are just some things I picked up, there's probably tens more. Even if you don't believe in Christianity, that's not the point, the point is, they should not put up themselves as neutral scientific inquirers and then twist and edit truth to suit their unbelieving agenda.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Enclyclopedia type of book
Comment: The title is a bit misleading and the portion on art is a bit longer that other parts but this is an interesting collection of 'stuff' to know about. Well put together and some of the photos are strong. Some are not so strong--otherwise this could rate 4.5 stars.
|
