{"id":5099,"date":"2019-12-09T05:00:40","date_gmt":"2019-12-09T13:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/?p=5099"},"modified":"2019-12-08T21:43:31","modified_gmt":"2019-12-09T05:43:31","slug":"mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-iv-chapter-2-part-ii-chapter-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/markreads.net\/reviews\/2019\/12\/mark-reads-the-science-of-discworld-iv-chapter-2-part-ii-chapter-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark Reads ‘The Science of Discworld IV’: Chapter 2, Part II \/ Chapter 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the second and third chapters of Judgment Day<\/i>, we learn of malleability and Marjorie Daw. Intrigued? Then it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s time for Mark to read The Science of Discworld IV<\/i>.\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Roundworld<\/b><\/p>\n

I know I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve said this before in previous reviews of the three Science<\/i> books that came before this, but seriously: I love things that explain complicated ideas in easy-to-understand ways! I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t believe this is the first time the point of science has been discussed, nor is it the first time that the authors have gone into detail how science is designed to be something to be questioned constantly<\/i>. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s just that this section helps break down the notion of scientific theory in a way that I could have used when I was younger and didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t grasp the difference quite as well. Someone would try to dunk on me by saying that a scientific theory was unproven and based entirely on conjecture, and I just didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have the words to refute that and explain the actual<\/i> definition:\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The other meaning is \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcan extensive, interconnected body of ideas that have survived countless independent attempts at disproof.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 IT\u00e2\u20ac\u2122S SO SUCCINCT! And so well-laid out! It can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t become a scientific theory until that body of ideas survives rigorous testing!<\/p>\n

And it wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t just that. I have very distinct memories of trying to argue (but failing to be successful) with the nuns who taught my catechism, who gleefully told us that science must<\/i> be fake because so many scientific \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ideas\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the past were proven wrong. Thus, how can anything scientists tell us these days be held in high esteem? Their track record was terrible<\/i>! Seventeen-year-old me knew there was something deeply wrong with this, but there are few things more frustrating than not being able to communicate a thing you feel. And I felt like this was wrong! But it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s spelled here so well: just because we improve our scientific theories with new information does not mean that science itself is thereby wrong and flawed.<\/p>\n

At the same time, at least in the context of the various faiths I was raised in or had contact with, I definitely was told not<\/i> to question knowledge or to change my opinions or beliefs when presented with new information. The authors spend a lot of time giving us specific examples of scientists believing patently false things, but doing so with the limited information at the time. The phlogiston example fits this perfectly! I do think that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a bit too much equivalency between Christian religions and all<\/i> religions, especially since some of my Buddhist friends and some of my Jewish friends would like to have a word about their faith not encouraging them to challenge what is known. Still, I related to the sentiment as it applied to the specific conditions of my life; it just doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t work quite<\/i> the same on a more general level.\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Discworld<\/b><\/p>\n

So, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s entirely possible at this point that Marjorie Daw is a real historical figure that I just don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t understand. I think the nursery rhyme suggests that she actually isn’t<\/i> a historical figure, since she has that as a reference point? Perhaps there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a famous librarian in Britain and that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s who this is! But\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 why a Librarian? Why did pressing that button bring Marjorie to the Discworld? I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t see a reason for that at all. I did enjoy that while Marjorie was confused and disoriented, she mostly was like, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Well, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m here for the ride. I shall nap, and then LET US CONTINUE.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d She wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t begging to be taken home or demanding all too much of the Archchancellor. So, that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s interesting to me! Why is she so comfortable here? (I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll accept that it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s because she\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a librarian, honestly.)<\/p>\n

Ponder Stibbons\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s suggestion, though, worries me. If there is<\/i> going to be seepage between the worlds, are matters going to be further upset by sending the Dean and Rincewind over to the Roundworld experiment? Look, I just can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t believe that they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll be able to easily pop over and not<\/i> accidentally derail all of history in the span of five minutes. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s just not how these things work! But I also wonder if this is an issue of balance. Did something from the Disc end up in Roundworld? Did Marjorie trade places with someone or something<\/i>? UGH I NEED TO KNOW.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/ExW3uS0bHdg<\/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":"