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.'"
...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 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!"
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
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*
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.
If you critisise them for `not sticking to science' then you deserve to be called an idiot, as they rightly say it's impossible to isolate science from the social context in which it happens. Eg. if you don't know what is being funded, you can't know whether it's significant that there are a lot of results in some area recently; if you don't see reports of scientists being pressured by the state top change their results, how will you know what weight to put on those results?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
"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.
Fox has a news channel?
This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?