Harley talks about how maps should not be accepted as true and how”scientific maps are a product of… norms and values of the order of social tradition.” Although I believe this is true in some sense (borders and boundaries, although set with set physical boundaries such as mountain ranges, or rivers, are man made and have a cultural history behind them), but I think it is hard to argue that maps using satellite images of the world and land are not true. Because I am enrolled in GIS this semester, I know there are many ways to portray maps and that flat maps are hardly ever perfectly accurate/proportional, but the advancement of technology has allowed maps to be more accurate than they ever have been before. I believe maps are accepted as true for this reason, which is the reason I was surprised when Harley stated that this acceptance “… has led to a tendency to look down on maps of the past, (and) regard maps of early cultures as inferior to European maps.” In my opinion, other maps that didn’t have access to the technology that we have today wont be as accurate. While reading this article, I found myself thinking back to google maps and how there are street view options for most of the world and wondering how a map could get more accurate or be considered as “more true” than that.