Slashdot Mirror
Scientific American Gives Up
IvyMike writes "The April issue Scientific American opens with a Perspectives column titled Okay, We Give Up. It opens, 'For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.'"
These NEVER get old. Really. Seriously. Okay, I give up.
This issue brought to you in part by the Bush Administration
_
free cursors
...but look at our current political and social climate in regards to theology - this may be tongue in cheek, but it's not unthinkable. That should keep you up at night - it does for me, anyway.
I have no truck with people believing there's some grey-haired grandfather in the sky that remembers everyone's birthday, but please, keep it out of our schools, and off of our laws.
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
Fox News is the joke
I think an accurate portrayal of Bush would be enough of an April Fool's joke.
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
April 2nd in Australia.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
I would fully expect to see an article just like this on the 2nd and not consider it a joka at all...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
You sure this one is a fake?
With creationism snaking its way into science curriculums and environmental issues (e.g., global warming, ocean dead zones, etc.) being pretty much ignored in the good old USA, it's as good a time as any for scientists to say "aw, fuck it!"
My supervisor said it best... once you have faith, you don't need to look for anymore proof. There's no need to find a better answer - no need to strive for higher learning of how the world works. If you are a faith-based person, things just happen "because they are supposed to."
BLAH.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
Will you people please get into the Slashdot-April-1st-mentality? All I see is "OMG NOW FUNNY!"
It's not ment to be funny! It's a day where just random joke articles are posted, if you don't like it go read a book. It's a giggle once a year, the "it's not funny" feeling you get after 4 of them is all part of it.
I like muppets.
It is interesting they harp on the most easily defensible position (evolution) to defend themselves against criticisms that are based additionally on things such as their coverage of global warming, abortion, etc. Yes it is an April fools joke. They are not calling us idiots for falling for it, they are calling us idiots for criticizing them for not sticking to science. Which involves more than just their take on evolution.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It may be an April's Fool joke, but Scientific American has exhibited some rather obvious biases in the past. They've never seen an arms control treaty that they didn't like, and they've consistently attacked all proposals for strategic defense. It's not that these are issues that shouldn't be debated, it's the one-sided approach that the magazine has pursued in this and other areas. They tend to lose their objectivity when covering issues that are dear to the editors and publisher.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Then your supervisor is working off of a very bad definition of faith. I have faith in my wife, as she has proven herself faithful. Someone questions that, and he gets a fist in the face. Someone produces a polaroid, and she gets... um... the divorce papers ;)
Faith is the belief in continued performance based upon past experience. Not a blind belief. Though, I will grant, many make it to be that way.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
It's obvious they've become increasingly frustrated by the overwhelming atmosphere of stupidity that has descended over our politics and media lately.
They wanted to lash out at the source of their frustration, but in a way that didn't imperil their status as a reputable (well that's debatable) publication. So they choose the one day of the year when people can go nuts and say what they really mean, and then throw up their hands and say April Fools!
Our society is like a toned-down of Japan in this way, we have a built in release valve for venting our frustration at being bound by certain rules and regulations most of the time. *fwooot*
Everybody knows that the earth was built using a cast of characters including: The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and 3 of the 4 Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles. (Rafael, Donnatello, Leonardo)
Intelligent design is the best April Fools joke placed on us by our culture.
No, you just decribed trust in your wife. If you are shown a polaroid that she has been adulterous, she gets divorce papers; we show creationists "polaroids" all the time, but they choose to remain in their "marriage" to their imaginary friend.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
"Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?"
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
from a google search on "Define:Faith" ...
:)
complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman";
Care to continue to argue? Or do you already have "faith" in your argument?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Fox has a news channel?
This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed?
This is the kind of political bullshit that finally drove me to drop the subscription after 6 or 7 years of it, and it's a shame. Nobody "slashed" the NSF budget, they just didn't increase it as much as you wanted. There is a major difference, and the way that you say it makes a large difference on the perception.
Such stupid language is pure politics, and bullshit politics at that. It's not science, nor does it have any place in a scientific magazine.
I noticed, too, that the Clinton administration could do no wrong, whereas the Bush administration can do no right. In actuality, there is little, if any, difference between their policies. Again, we're dealing with simplistic liberal politics.
I don't for a second blame SA for not lending any credibility to creationism or "intelligent design". However, there is plenty of stupid crap, like the sentence that I pointed out above, which has nothing to do with science yet ends up printed on their pages, anyway.
Why not get serious about depoliticizing your magazine? Seriously- I know of at least one other subscriber who dropped SA for the same reason, and I haven't even asked anybody else.
It's a shame, really, as SA used to be one of the best magazines around. Now it's little more than a snobbish, liberal "Discover".
Do you have ESP?
There are multiple definitions. You are referring to one, I am referring to another.
faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P )
Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
I am referring to #2. You are referring to #1.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
Did you notice the line about "fair and balanced science"?
A not-too-subtle poke if you ask me.
Yup and the church burned people for saying that the universe did not fit the platonic model Are we fair and sqaure now? Are you saying that there has been not advancements in pear reviewing in the last 150 years?
I'm trying to decide if the parent to this post is serious or not.
If it's not, then I have been trolled. Have a nice day.
There is no fossil evidence in conflict with the Theory of Evolution. If you think there is, please cite it. If it hasn't been published, write it up. If you can make a case, you'll be hailed as one of the innovators of science.
Two points do not _make_ a line. They _define_ a line in Euclidean Geometry.
People presumded that space was filled with "aether" because the then-current theory of waves demanded it. When attempts were made to measure the aether, it turned out not to be there. The person who came up with the best explanation of what was going on... his name is now a household word.
And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?
If creationist feel left out of the science classroom it is because they are. There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science. I have yet to be shown anything other then criticisms of evolution, which shows that evolution is actually better tested and proves nothing of spontaneous generation.
If beating the drum of political correctness seems to be a good way to win over rational minds you don't understand your audience. If you think it is unfair that theology does not get taught in science class then think of the converse. Maybe all churches should be forced to have science curricula read after the sermon with a notice in the bibles that "The contents of this book have in no way been substantiated and has not been edited to correct obvious mistakes".
The sarcastic tone indicates that they'll keep reporting as they have been.
I stopped subscribing when they started featuring stories on removing lanmines from southeast asia. The story was nothing but politics, I didn't learn a bit of science from it.
When they get back on track reporting quantum physics, biology, even economics and sociology, maybe I'll read it again. But when they're choosing ENTIRE TOPICS based on their politics, count me out.
I subscribed to SA until I read that editorial. I never liked the political commentary bashing the administration, when other administrations had raped various science budgets and projects but didn't seem to receive the same scorn. But I put up with it.
After the April issue came out and the editors made known their disdain of their customers through the sarcasm of their little April Fools joke, I decided I will not support them with my dollars anymore.
Give me science news not a political biased view of science. I don't ask them to start denouncing proven science like evolution, but I do think they could increase their sales if they just stuck to the science.
What I find deeply disingenuous and frankly manipulative about this whole article is that they build this mocking straw man about Creationists, and lump in with him anyone who's criticized them for politicizing the magazine.
Convenient.
And then throw in the editorializing in the last paragraph? No, they haven't politicized their stance at all, and anyone who'd suggest so must be one of those slope-browed Creationist religious crazies!
Personally, I think that they could have a terrific series of articles DISCUSSING politically charged topics - but instead their recent article on Global Warming was again, a strawman 'misunderstanding' of the debate. The article a while back on SDI was screed against the poolitics and the concept with little said about the scientific plausibility (or lack) of the idea. But then who am I? I'm just one of the slope-browed masses who believe that just because you have a PhD in (something) doesn't equate to being an expert in (everything). SciAm *loves* to make fun of congressmen or politicians that blunder about scientific topics, but they see no hypocrisy in their making similarly-uninformed prognostications about international diplomacy or national policy.
Ironically, they criticize the Bush Administration for 'politicizing science'. Fine, discuss the debate and show the evidence where they've done it (along with fair time for the administration to rebut if they can). But once you take sides, you are NO BETTER.
You dumb bastards, I've been a subscriber to SciAm since SIXTH GRADE (1980). Aside from a year or two in the middle, I've been a subscriber for 25 years, and it kills me to say it but I'm now cancelling my subscription. This really hurts, but it's been a long time on my mind. I admit that I really do hate you guys for driving me to this. But if I want to read this crap, I'll read Mother Jones.
"Scientific" American's sarcastic, self important, snide editorial shows precisely what they think of this reader, anyway. Goodbye, SciAm.
-Styopa
And good riddance to you sir.
There is plenty of place for sarcasm, and it's about time people started speaking up.
Creationism and Evolution are not even in the same CATEGORY. Creationism is a belief based on religious faith. Evolution is a scientific theory. One belong in science class, one does NOT.
It's fine if you believe in creationism, or intelligent design. Perfectly fine. It's fine if you believe in God, or Allah, or whatever you want, and it's also fine for you to spread your beliefs around.
The vast majority of religious people, including very learned scientists, don't see a conflict here. Believing that God created the universe does not conflict with exploring that universe and coming up with scientific theories, it merely underpins everything.
A vocal minority, however, has been getting way, way too much press saying that their religious beliefs should be taught in science class, and that Evolution is a big lie.
This is not about belief, it's about science. Scientific American is a science magazine, and they are right to ridicule the spin doctors who want to get them to publish unscientific information based on their religious beliefs.
They don't criticize the Bush people for combining science and politics - they criticize them for removing science from their politics.
"I've been a subscriber to SciAm since SIXTH GRADE"
Dude, seriously. Do you actually read SciAm? Their articles are generally very good at describing the science of political issues.
"discuss the debate and show the evidence"
Did you read the last paragraph? Oh yeah, you complained that it was too political. Now you are saying that you want more policies discussed. Want to see the evidence? Open up one of your recent SciAms and READ AN ARTICLE! They explain it all right there, using a (somewhat) formal scientific style of writing with most of the information coming from peer-reviewed journal articles.
Wow, I really hope you were just doing this for April 1st. If not, then it looks like SciAm just lost a subscriber, but not a reader.
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?strin g=fox
961 problems with fox and counting. BTW, I love "a university media study" type citations.
"In other news, Bob Jones University researchers found that Fox news, while the most centrist of news organizations was still way out left..."
What liberal views get aired on fox? I've watched more than my fair share, and I get to listen to the dittoheads at work spout off about how great fox is all day long (I work at an Air Force Base). There is no liberal news on fox.
If you want "liberal news" try Air America radio, http://www.commondreams.org, http://www.alternews.net, or a real liberal news source. CNN used to be centrist, but even they've skewed right. Same thing with NPR. The closest thing to centrist news available is the BBC. Everything else has been pulled waaaay right. Which you don't recognize until you actually read/listen to some openly liberal stuff. Then you'll see how out of whack all "news" in this country is.
Not to mention the fact that stories that shouldn't matter nationally keep getting picked up by conservative bloggers and forced onto national media. Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers (and I'm not even going to start on the irony of Bush's "culture of life" coming from a man who signed more death warrents than any other governer in HISTORY!)
Or have you only comfort...that stealthy thing that enters the house and guest then becomes host, then master - KG
The problem is that scientists almost unanimously agree that the ballisitic missile defense shield is unworkable in it's current state. The reason that they've "consistently attacked all proposals for strategic defense," is because they won't work, plain and simple. The ONLY test that has ever worked was under a heavily skewed test, where the target's coordinates were GIVEN to the defense missile. If you knew the government was wasting billons of your dollars every year instead of trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, would you do nothing?
Ever since the 1980's, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which includes many many professors of physics, materials science, and who have done defense-related research, wrote an open letter to Reagan saying his ICBM Shield is unworkable and a waste of taxpayer money. Nothing has changed since; Bush is still funding billions every year into a project that's scientifically unfeasable. The reason there's been so much of a campaign again the current administration by scientists is plain and simple - the Bush administration is one of the most openly hostile to science administrations there are:
1. Dismissing published/peer-reviewed AIDS studies and promoting people who then teach kids that AIDS might be transmittable through sweat and tears. REVERSING decades of improvements in the Uganda AIDS situation by promoting abstience only education - the UN has issued a strong protest against this as it threatens the lives of millions in the country.
2. Promoting people to the EPA that have no scientific background and were working in the very industries they're supposed to regulate. Repeatedly ignoring global warming studies despite almost unanimous agreement among scientists; care to point to legimate sources that say there're other reasons?
Here is pretty much the entire scope of any argument with a Bible Thumper:
Thumper: "The Bible says 'this'."
Rational: "That doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says 'that'."
Rational: "But that doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says that it does mean something."
Rational: "But it's the _Bible_ that says that the Bible means something... that doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says 'this'...."