This is not my favourite of the Science of Discworld books, but I’m not all that surprised by that, given that Pratchett was in his final years when he helped write it. (The vim and brio are lacking for me in a lot of his later work.) The science chapters are probably about the same quality as they’ve always been, but the framing Discworld story felt even looser and more didactic than the others have.

Bear in mind it’s been years since my last Science of Discworld so I might just be misremembering things. It happens. And that I read this primarily on long-distance transit while not completely awake, so there’s that too.

Science first, because why not. I liked that the authors tackled belief systems and knowledge to cap off the series. I didn’t learn much—which might be part of what was lackluster, come to think of it—but it felt like a very fitting way to end things, to talk about what’s known, what knowing things means, how we’ve come to know fundamental things about the earth, the universe, and physics in general, and how religions fit into the picture. It’s as encompassing and inclusive as Discworld and the Science of Discworld books usually are. They’re not saying that religion is wrong or untruthful, just that it’s different sort of truth than science provides. (There are also some discussions that continue from past books a bit, such as evolution, in that we’ve learned more since they were written.)

The Discworld segments, though… They’re a bit one-note and they felt slow. There’s not much going on besides the trial, which takes a while to get to and get through, and even though the Wizards are collecting evidence in the meantime, we don’t see that much of their work. They also don’t really feel like themselves? Sort of a watered-down version? None of that got to me really, though. What bugged me most was the addition of Marjorie Daw.

I can see the narrative point of bringing her in as an outsider POV in the chaos of the Wizards, but she didn’t seem to have much to do besides that. Ask a few questions in a quasi-Socratic dialogue and occasionally make outbursts, but that was it. Oh, and provide a little bit of atheist/librarian humour. She didn’t feel believable to me, let alone rounded the way I’m used to, and it make the whole thing feel a bit flat as a result. Like adding her was a cop-out.

So now I come down to my usual questions of whether I’d recommend this and to whom. I’m not sure. The science sections are interesting with some good food for thought but I didn’t find them enlightening or mind-blowing, but the Discworld parts are nothing to write home about. I guess if you’re a completist Discworld fan? If you’ve read the other Science of Discworlds? But this isn’t the one to start with, by any means.

Warnings: Sexism. Religious extremists, slightly mocked. Possible shaking of one’s beliefs about the world and one’s role in it, though probably not to the point of existential crisis.

6/10 (7 but it lost points with Marjorie.) ( )

I really liked this book. It goes through a lot of cutting edge science and history of science material, woven in with a story about a librarian from England accidentally transported to Unseen University on Discworld. This book goes through some of the cultural myths that inspired the turtle and elephants that hold up Discworld, as well, and provides a nice glimpse at L-space, the odd interdimensional space where all libraries intersect and exist. ( )

I'm not sure how much of this was written by the late, great Sir Terry, but I didn't see much of his signature wit in it. It is, however, a fine overview of how a scientific perspective differs from a mystical perspective. Science, the authors claim, is universe-centered. We are a consequence of the way the universe is. Mysticism and religion tend to be human-centered, placing Man (somewhat arrogantly) as the reason for the nature of the universe. Obviously, there is much discussion about the Anthropic Principle (both Strong and Weak). They also challenge the claim that science is a belief system, not unlike that of religions. The key reason it's not is that virtue in religious belief systems is gauged by faithful acceptance of the dogma/scriptures/dictates of the religion and accepting them as true. In science, the greatest virtue comes from challenging current beliefs and discovering ways in which they are flawed. ( )

I find it very interesting that scientists will present an extensive argument against the existence of the spiritual realm without allowing a single actual voice from that realm to be heard. Experiences of mystics, extensively documented, visions of deities, evidence for esp., recorded premonitions, careful examinations of religious belief and practice by such eminent minds as William James, all ignored. Why it's almost as if science is yet another religion that cannot bear to examine the claims of its rivals. And, as other reviewers have noted, the Discworld story that forms an interested frame for the other volumes in the series is reduced to a minimum in this volume.

This volume of the Science of Discworld books goes over evolution, cosmology, and religion, among other things. The discussion of these things is presented if fairly straightforward terms that most readers will be able to understand without having to resort to Google too often. I’ve read several books on quantum physics and cosmology (and still remain boggled by the subjects) and have to say this book puts in a very understandable way. The heart of the book, though, is a thread that runs through all the subjects, and that is why do people believe in things that cannot be proved scientifically. Why do some cling to young earth theories that geologists assure them are not true, or feel that their religion, and only their religion, is real and true despite *not* being able to prove it? Their answer is that religion is human-centered, even though it tries to explain universe centered things. A human centered world view concentrates on the smaller things, on a human scale. Science says the universe is huge, cold, and doesn’t give a damn about humans. A universe centered view offers no comfort.

Like the other SoD books, the science is strung together with a weak Discworld story. And it’s very weak in this book. A couple of pages of story at the start of every chapter makes it a very short story, and it has no plot arc. A fair number of Discworld characters put in appearances, but it’s like they are just wheeled out to wave at the crowd and be gone. If you’re looking for an overview of the sciences presented in this book, it’s fine. But don’t expect a real Discworld story. ( )