I have the books and also the audio books which are great for the science bits as they make it sound so logical and not too over your head baffling, just finished listening today the 3rd one today Darwins Watch, that's what is really good with the unabridged ones you get the full story nothing missing. 
I just started reading both SOD #2 and # simultaneously (one is reserved for the gym).
I, too, find the science parts long-winded and while somewhat useful, I've gotten extremely annoyed at the some of the presumptions of the science writers, particularly in their views on evolution. If they don't agree with a certain point of view, they simply say it's wrong, and they state assumptions as if they were facts. For example, they claim that Stephen Gould's very sensible opinion that if evolution were 'rewound' to the beginning that life would have evolved in totally different ways is wrong without providing any good evidence why this is so. They claim that just because certain features are common in many species that it was inevitable that these features would develop. While admitting that string theory is completely unprovable, they nevertheless totally buy into the huge mass of mumbo jumbo that the string theorists have thrown out there to create a totally half-baked hypothesis that our kind of universe is not only inevitable, but probable. They try to discredit Dawkins and other biologists while not particularly well proving their own counterarguments.
As far as the 'non-science' bits go, I don't find the stories or dialogue anywhere near Pterry's best.
I, too, find the science parts long-winded and while somewhat useful, I've gotten extremely annoyed at the some of the presumptions of the science writers, particularly in their views on evolution. If they don't agree with a certain point of view, they simply say it's wrong, and they state assumptions as if they were facts. For example, they claim that Stephen Gould's very sensible opinion that if evolution were 'rewound' to the beginning that life would have evolved in totally different ways is wrong without providing any good evidence why this is so. They claim that just because certain features are common in many species that it was inevitable that these features would develop. While admitting that string theory is completely unprovable, they nevertheless totally buy into the huge mass of mumbo jumbo that the string theorists have thrown out there to create a totally half-baked hypothesis that our kind of universe is not only inevitable, but probable. They try to discredit Dawkins and other biologists while not particularly well proving their own counterarguments.
As far as the 'non-science' bits go, I don't find the stories or dialogue anywhere near Pterry's best.
Dotsie said:
They talk like that in real life too, but they seemed harmless so I didn't have a go in public. When I asked Jack about the validity of some of his statements, he said they didn't have time to go into detail 
Sensationalist pop science is worse than no science at all.
Sensationalist pop science is worse than no science at all.
Happily for us, there are bacteria that will use arsenic and cyanide, so could mop up any toxins produced. It's methane release that worries me, since there'd be too much to cope with. But yes, bacteria will definitely be the last ones standing. When you look at the fossil record, and examine the reasons for mass extinctions, it boggles the mind that any 'scientist' could imagine it would all go the same way a second time.
Or that just because we're carbon based lifeforms that live on water and that the system works for us that all life has to be similar. We've all seen enough bad SF movies and TV shows to appreciate that it's quite possible that life in our universe exists in other forms that are completely beyond what we can imagine, or that other lifeforms may experience our universe entirely differently. There might be some kind of sentient species out there that live in the "quanta reality," perceiving the stuff of our universe not as "assembled bits of matter' but as individual molecules, atoms, photons, quarks, strings or whatever, making their universe a completely interconnected infinite bowl of quanta soup. With no Kardashians. We can dream, can't we?
But they don't necessarily say that do they? I've listened to the 'What would an Alien look like?' talk about 3 times now and certainly what Jack Cohen says about methane in particular is what you've just said Dotsie - that we'd be totally buggered if global warming really kicked in and currently frozen methane escaped.
The Alien lecture goes on to cover why 'rewind' evolution could vary wildly with even tiny changes like the famous 'wrong way around' oesophagus and trachea arrangements (so we couldn't choke when eating and drinking which effects nearly all air-breathing vertebrates)? The message I always come away with from their talks at least, is that life wouldn't ever evolve in the exact same way again anywhere or, indeed, anywhen :shifty:
The Science of the Discworld series is about the evolution (geological, biological as well as social and intellectual thrown casually against astral physics and string theory etc) we've had to create Roundworld as we know it, so from that POV they're interpreting evolution in the Milky Way and in the Sol system as we have it, not how it might have been and how it contrasts with a 'crazy' universe where magic is science and so other laws apply...? Our developing future science now deals in 'what ifs' more than ever to allow for the 'idea' of the maverick, rather than the 'it is so and so it ever shall be' of the giant beard in the sky brigade, but we still only have what we know for sure to hold up against the new fangled theories that constantly unroll and Science of the Discworld, whilst of course being populist, is also trying to challenge what is really weird and to how fantastic a degree that could be taken to, using words that most people can get a grasp of. And the story within all the Science is to explore how Discworld mirrors (in a carnival sense ) and twists the parallels with our own as we currently experience it and so far as we can, look into the future. In the 1960s we'd all supposedly be wearing silvery garb and some of us would be commuting to work on the Moon and/or Mars in the early 21st Century and look how that's turned out? 
Discworld is absurd and so therefore is it's Science - long may it remain so
The Alien lecture goes on to cover why 'rewind' evolution could vary wildly with even tiny changes like the famous 'wrong way around' oesophagus and trachea arrangements (so we couldn't choke when eating and drinking which effects nearly all air-breathing vertebrates)? The message I always come away with from their talks at least, is that life wouldn't ever evolve in the exact same way again anywhere or, indeed, anywhen :shifty:
The Science of the Discworld series is about the evolution (geological, biological as well as social and intellectual thrown casually against astral physics and string theory etc) we've had to create Roundworld as we know it, so from that POV they're interpreting evolution in the Milky Way and in the Sol system as we have it, not how it might have been and how it contrasts with a 'crazy' universe where magic is science and so other laws apply...? Our developing future science now deals in 'what ifs' more than ever to allow for the 'idea' of the maverick, rather than the 'it is so and so it ever shall be' of the giant beard in the sky brigade, but we still only have what we know for sure to hold up against the new fangled theories that constantly unroll and Science of the Discworld, whilst of course being populist, is also trying to challenge what is really weird and to how fantastic a degree that could be taken to, using words that most people can get a grasp of. And the story within all the Science is to explore how Discworld mirrors (in a carnival sense
) and twists the parallels with our own as we currently experience it and so far as we can, look into the future. In the 1960s we'd all supposedly be wearing silvery garb and some of us would be commuting to work on the Moon and/or Mars in the early 21st Century and look how that's turned out? Discworld is absurd and so therefore is it's Science - long may it remain so
That would be fine if the writers of the science bits only interpreted what has happened, rather than what might have been. The fact that they are refuting theories from far more reputable biologists (like Dawkins and Gould) in such a deterministic way without providing solid (or any) evidence for their value judgments is what bugs me. Even a strong string theory advocate like Brian Greene will admit again and again in his books that in spite of the 'mathematical' evidence, there are still enough holes in the theory and the problem of nearly impossible observable evidence to prove it (at this point in tome) that it may never be anything more than a theory.
I think that might be more to do with their advanced age and academic status that compounds the 'we know what we're talking about more' attitude.
They were/are both 'proper' scientists in their day so perhaps that's where the nuance comes from. Ian Stewart is a mathematician more, but he's done a lot of seminal work in the 'catastrophe theory' field, so presumably knows something about the cosmic order (more than Noel Edmonds anyway )
Jack Cohen's extremely eccentric and vastly entertaining in his nearly octagenarian way, but he's been very influential in his chosen field of reproductive biology and has taught highly regarded scientists who went on to get Nobel prizes, as well as helped Anne McCaffrey sort her dragons out properly .
I guess it's simply what perspective you want to read the Science series from. If you're looking for hard factual but digestible science then I'd say it's asking a bit too much from a set of book dealing with a fantasy universe that feeds largely off comedic devices? When you're dealing with science on the basis of 'lies to children' or telling it like 'story-telling apes' perhaps it's consequently vital to take the voice(s) of authority with a strong dose of salts at all times :shifty:
They were/are both 'proper' scientists in their day so perhaps that's where the nuance comes from. Ian Stewart is a mathematician more, but he's done a lot of seminal work in the 'catastrophe theory' field, so presumably knows something about the cosmic order (more than Noel Edmonds anyway
) Jack Cohen's extremely eccentric and vastly entertaining in his nearly octagenarian way, but he's been very influential in his chosen field of reproductive biology and has taught highly regarded scientists who went on to get Nobel prizes, as well as helped Anne McCaffrey sort her dragons out properly
. I guess it's simply what perspective you want to read the Science series from. If you're looking for hard factual but digestible science then I'd say it's asking a bit too much from a set of book dealing with a fantasy universe that feeds largely off comedic devices?
When you're dealing with science on the basis of 'lies to children' or telling it like 'story-telling apes' perhaps it's consequently vital to take the voice(s) of authority with a strong dose of salts at all times :shifty: I'm a proper scientist too It's not their knowledge I was contesting however, but their scientific method was seriously lacking and a first year could have seen it. They admitted as much, but said it was because of the time they had (no it wasn't, it was because they were being sensationalist - nobody wants a dull lecture, they want to go "wow!!" a lot). Still, science would be a lot more boring if we were all agreeing all the time
It's not their knowledge I was contesting however, but their scientific method was seriously lacking and a first year could have seen it. They admitted as much, but said it was because of the time they had (no it wasn't, it was because they were being sensationalist - nobody wants a dull lecture, they want to go "wow!!" a lot). Still, science would be a lot more boring if we were all agreeing all the time
Jan Van Quirm said:
Jack Cohen's extremely eccentric and vastly entertaining in his nearly octagenarian way, but he's been very influential in his chosen field of reproductive biology and has taught highly regarded scientists who went on to get Nobel prizes, as well as helped Anne McCaffrey sort her dragons out properly .
I guess it's simply what perspective you want to read the Science series from. If you're looking for hard factual but digestible science then I'd say it's asking a bit too much from a set of book dealing with a fantasy universe that feeds largely off comedic devices? When you're dealing with science on the basis of 'lies to children' or telling it like 'story-telling apes' perhaps it's consequently vital to take the voice(s) of authority with a strong dose of salts at all times :shifty:
. I guess it's simply what perspective you want to read the Science series from. If you're looking for hard factual but digestible science then I'd say it's asking a bit too much from a set of book dealing with a fantasy universe that feeds largely off comedic devices?
When you're dealing with science on the basis of 'lies to children' or telling it like 'story-telling apes' perhaps it's consequently vital to take the voice(s) of authority with a strong dose of salts at all times :shifty:
