Well produced but inaccurate
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I generally enjoy this type of show. To its credit, it has high production qualities and flows well. Unfortunately, it suffers from a lack of fact-checking and the hubris of its own hosts, who seem to mean well but were probably not the kids you’d want to cheat off of in any of your science classes.
Each episode has interviews from subject matter experts who are great - and who do not need the presenters to explain (often inaccurately) what they mean to the audience; That is what makes them great in their fields. An example: One recent episode included an absolutely absurd aside explaining “isotopes of carbon like C3, C4, and so on” which any high school chemistry student could point out as nonsense. Was there no one to fact-check what an isotope is, and how they are named?
Disappointing because the information can not be trusted as it’s presented. Not worth the subscription.”
Calmante via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
04/28/21
More reviews of Unexplainable
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“The pink squirrel episode is epic. Forest rave”
toane1938483 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
07/14/21
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Forest raves! I want more about forest raves!”
DeepSeaDave via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
07/14/21
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Wonderful episodes presented in a listener-friendly way. Keep them coming!”
ceramicstage via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
03/23/21
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
