{"id":4960,"date":"2019-05-31T05:00:40","date_gmt":"2019-05-31T12:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/?p=4960"},"modified":"2019-05-29T16:25:00","modified_gmt":"2019-05-29T23:25:00","slug":"mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-chapter-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/2019\/05\/mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-chapter-22\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark Reads ‘The Science of Discworld’: Chapter 22"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the twenty-second chapter of Darwin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Watch<\/i>, I learn about folk myths and how they shape our culture. Intrigued? Then it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s time for Mark to read The Science of Discworld III<\/i>.\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t necessarily agree with everything in this chapter, and I think that comes less from what<\/i> is stated than how<\/i> it is stated. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll admit that on a meta level, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m kinda amused that in all chapters, this<\/i> is the one where the authors\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 biases and prejudices come through, since the whole point of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Forget the Facts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is to discuss how cultural biases and prejudices affect our views of the world. Specifically, Cohen and Stewart address \u00e2\u20ac\u0153folk\u00e2\u20ac\u009d views of science, which are the popularized ideas about it that humans generally hold. We addressed that in chapter 20 in terms of genetics and evolution, and here, they start off by talking about how many scientific theories have been integrated into our lives so much that we just\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really think about them? On video, I gave the example of having a similar realization while working on my laptop the other day. But holy shit, even the fact that y\u00e2\u20ac\u2122all are able to read this review from all over the world at pretty much the same time is RIDICULOUS. Yet that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s good, reliable science that got us to this point, and we just don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really think about it or consider it \u00e2\u20ac\u0153flashy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d enough. But I would have LOVED to learn science by having everyday objects explained to me!!! I also bet I would have retained more of that knowledge if I had been taught in that manner.\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m getting at\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand what I think Cohen and Stewart are, too\u00e2\u20ac\u201dis that the vehicle of information sometimes matters as much as the information itself. Popular science is distilled through various mediums, and there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a whole part of this chapter that details the various fictional concepts of Mars that trickled down into our public consciousness. (Well, some<\/i> of us, but more on that in a bit.) Bradbury and Heinlein wrote fiction, but their fiction about Mars had a lasting impact on how we thought of that planet, even if what we \u00e2\u20ac\u0153knew\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of it wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually factual at all. The most glaring example in this chapter? The image of the dodo. OH MY GOD, MY MENTAL IMAGE OF THAT BIRD IS<\/i> BASED ON SIR JOHN TENNIEL\u00e2\u20ac\u2122S DRAWING. Holy shit, WHAT?!?!?!? I assumed that that image was a real drawing, not a fictional illustration?<\/p>\n

So, I believed that the authors had made their point, and boy, did they make it well. Unfortunately, I lost the thread just a bit after that, and it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s due to a complaint I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve had before: there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a very Western\/white view of society, culture, and history that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s written into this book. Of all the books on Mars mentioned, they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re all by British and American white men, and there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s no talk of what other cultures thought of Mars outside those two nations. Did they write books about it? What was popular among those people? Surely there was fiction created about the cosmos outside of Britain and America, right? (I know there is, but just trying to make a point.)<\/p>\n

This same bias appears when Cohen and Stewart conclude this chapter with a long bit about rationality in the human context. Based on what the text itself defines as terrorism, there seem to be only two groups of fundamentalists: extreme Muslims and Catholics. (Perhaps the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Thuggee worshippers\u00e2\u20ac\u009d also counts.) The vast majority of references to terrorism are in conjunction with references to Islam, and there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s that truly unnecessary footnote about \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Palestinian terrorists\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that felt almost\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 cruel? It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the only reference to Palestine in any of these books, and that<\/i> is the one detail you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re going to pick out?\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This was written in a post-9\/11 age, in a world where many nations were at war in the Middle East, though we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve known for ages that it was largely based on a lie. So, I understand that there was a contextual reason for the focus here. But it seems too limiting to me, especially when there are so many other ways of thinking about our world that involve the actual<\/i> majority of the people. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not like these two nations\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe US and Britain\u00e2\u20ac\u201dcomprise most of the human race. We\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re the minority! Thus, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s all a bit too generalized for me, and that goes for the breakdown on rational faith, too. I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think you can break down human belief into authoritarian theists, deists, and then those who don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t believe. There are theists who aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t authoritarian at all, so do they end up with the deists? How does that work? And look, I am a non-believer through and through, but this positing that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153thoughtful people who have given up on the idea of a personal, anthropomorphic God altogether\u00e2\u20ac\u009d are at the top of this system feels real arrogant. Like, the whole line about being \u00e2\u20ac\u0153happy to live on the same planet\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as the deists was so aggressive?\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know, y\u00e2\u20ac\u2122all, I feel like there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s an important discussion here. I certainly think that we, as a society, need to discuss how religion\u00e2\u20ac\u201dcertain religions, I should say\u00e2\u20ac\u201dhave affected our beliefs and our means of interacting with other people, particularly those who are not<\/i> of the same belief system as us. Look at what is happening in America in 2019 in terms of religious belief and the bodily autonomy of women and people with uteruses. My country has to have a reckoning with the way it allowed a misogynistic, violent form of conservatism, wrapped up in Christian belief, to continue to thrive over so, so many decades. But I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s as potent a point in this chapter. It just seems to suggest that those who accept science and an impersonal God (or a non-existent one) are just better people? Meh.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=s5oGu-bX7mk<\/p>\n

Mark Links Stuff<\/b><\/p>\n

– The paperback edition of my debut, ANGER IS A GIFT, is now OUT!<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>If you’d like to stay up-to-date on all announcements regarding my books, sign up for my newsletter<\/a>! DO IT.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"