It's hard for me to find good nature documentaries, when they aren't hosted by Attenborough. But my daughter and I just started watching "Tiny World" on apple tv. It's hosted by Paul Rudd, and it's absolutely amazing. The shots of animals they get are crazy, half the time I wonder if its been green screened. Highly recommend it.
Can we stop describing every activity as a "science" or an "art"?
are you really this insecure about your endeavors that you have to attach these signifiers to make it look palatable and convince strangers it's not a waste of time?
I always understood that usage to mean that there are deeper, unexpected layers, not that the time spent is necessarily valuable. “Discover the lost art and science of the London system” (in chess) would be a deep dive into it, rather than an explanation why playing it is a better use of your time than learning other openings.
Maybe, but it's an article about nature documentaries. Is 'art' not an appropriate term? It seems more applicable here than most places I've seen it. What term would you use?
You’d be surprised at the amount of things written by people to put a veil of logical reasoning behind impulsive, emotional and irrational life choices/decisions. Or maybe not.
