Dotsie wrote: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.
Dotsie wrote: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.
Jan Van Quirm wrote:
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...?
Jan Van Quirm wrote:They were/are both 'proper' scientists in their day
Jan Van Quirm wrote: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
raisindot wrote:I just finished the section in SOD #2 where he repeats the most astonishingly idiotic claims about ritual torture being a key driver of human evolution and throws out some totally unsupported (and, frankly, borderline anti-semitic) assumptions about Jewish genetics and culture.
Dotsie wrote:His field is reproductive biology, not evolutionary biology, so he can spout bunkum all he likes, it just an opinion! I'm teaching a generation of scientists myself, doesn't make me right all the time (I am right all the time, but that's just not the reason ).
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests