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 they're still trying to make a buck charging for the article.
How American.
These NEVER get old. Really. Seriously. Okay, I give up.
We don't even get a full joke!
wait for it. .. .. .. .. ..
unfunny
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/0 1/1359201&tid=99&tid=14
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
and everyone's a comedian
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Um, perhaps the submitter is a Scientific American "digital" subscriber, but the rest of us aren't. You think maybe Slashdot should link to full-text articles?
There's gotta be a Fox News Joke somewhere in there.
THEY need to hire Paris Hilton
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
the stories are fast and furious today.
always mosh clockwise
Registration Required, but at least that's better than cash:
/ 11281408.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
This one actually made me giggle like a little schoolgirl. Giggle with joy that they finally admit that creationism is a valid theory.*
*Parts of this statement may be false.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
This issue brought to you in part by the Bush Administration
_
free cursors
Me too.
The complete article is hereb hatesyou_archive.html%23111147519912475081
http://mrbobhatesyou.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_mrbo
And its very funny
Slashdot should stop screwing around with lame April Fools pranks and just swap the home page with a copy of Last Measure. Everything else is just screwing around...and the Last Measure thing would really get everyone ;)
-Turkey
...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.
Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. 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.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science eitherâ"so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
(courtesy of Mr Bob Hates You.)
"Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend." - Emil Michel Cioran
They're changing their name to "Christian Scientific American."
I laughed out loud, even though I'm alone in the room. No joke.
Yawnnnnnnnnnnn.....
Enough already........................
PS.. This isn't a Joke I am serious.....
intelligent design in these spoofs.
April 2nd in Australia.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Its about time they gave up on their science and facts and focused on the truth of Creationism -- Because a Talking Snake in a Tree is much more realistic then evolution! Or better yet Intelligent Design -- God or Aliens invented us. Pick one! I love April Fools Day :)
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
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.
When the global warming fad cycles back in 10 or 20 years to a "new ice age!" fad like we had back in the 1970s, all of the recent global warming articles in SciAm will make the issues all look like April Fools.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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!"
Damn FDR and his secret WPA project that had young men bury thousands of fake dino skeletons all over the country.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
They don't appear to be joking.
All you easterners have made all the necessary bad jokes for the day by the time I have my bagel. Thereafter, we know what's been done horribly and have the chance to either a: realize we're no-talent hacks and not try the stupid jokes, or b: make the same joke a second time in the same way that wasn't funny the first either.
Ain't it great?
My little site.
This morning I heard on the radio to beware of April fool's day.
Which web site be the one to verify this right away?
Slashdot!!
I gues I should give Fark.com it's due too.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
preaching to the choir.
For all of you folks that don't go to church, that means telling people what they want to hear.
The readers of Scientific American already enjoy getting a full dose of humorless anti-religion pseudo-science or they wouldn't be subscribers.
April issue, and I must say it saddens me. While I agree with their position (anti-nutball theories), it is highly unprofesisonal of them. I know of a few people who canceled their subscriptions (myself not included).
I DID find it highly ironic that the essay both criticized the emotional attachments of eccentric nutballs to their pet theories, and at the same time carried the whipish attitude of a holier-than-thou stereotype lambasting others for daring to oppose what (in their opinion) is "obviously the Truth."
Way to go, guys. Your commitment to printing only facts and truth shows through wonderfully.
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
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
The object is not to fool you, pinhead, it's to present the fake articles produced by geeky news sites around the net.
Surely, user 22596, you know the drill by this time, yet every year the whiners turn out with their stumpy moralism about how April Fool's Day ought to be run.
Please spend one day a year without slashdot and allow those without your Protestant rectitude to see if they can't make some amusing bits from the raw materials provided by the stories.
Kill, Tux, kill!
I'd do that, but chances are there will not be a monetary system by 2015 due global chaos caused by complete ice-cap meltdown.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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*
I read this when it came out in the Scientific American. This was way before April 1st and I was getting really worked up reading through the article. I decided to cancel my subscription because I was so mad.
And then I got to the point where I realised that it was a joke. To my defense I did get it before the last line which did refer to April Fools day.
It actually gave me a chuckle then.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
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.
Funny, I "gave up" on Scienctific American about 10 years ago when they started dumbing down to look like another Popular Science. Did they ever turn that around?
"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.
Today's April fools Jokes:
- Funny
- Unfunny
- April what?
- What do you mean Paris Hilton really isn't going to advertise for Linux!?!
This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
Event Name: Do not surf Slashdot on 4/1
Event Schedule: Annually
Repeat: Indefinitely
Reminder: 1 Day Prior to Event
Purpose: To avoid weak-assed attempts at humor
[levine] [at] [goatse.cx]
How ironic - is your e-mail supposed to be funny? goatse.cx is OLD - Give it a fucking rest.
".... no, really, it's just mindfuckingly stupid."
Consider the shut-ins who live for this mindfuckingly stupid material. They have one day of the year when their lives have meaning. Be a little more considerate.
Well the pope is refusing to go to the hospital today. Isn't that just Doctor Un-assisted suicide?
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?
I love the mod that took the above as a troll when it was basically a funny answer to the gp along with a decent comment in order to raise its value...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It's amazing how much science has become a religion. We can't learn from the past. Here's an example of someone who had the audacity to buck the system. Obviously anyone who disagrees that Evolution is a fact, because it has been "backed by over 10,000 peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals," is a religious fool, as Scientific American clearly shows. Emphasis added to quoted story below:
A brilliant Hungarian doctor of the last century named Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases. Articles in the book, None Of These Diseases by S. I. McMillen, M.D., and in the Encyclopedia Britannica documents the work of Semmelweis.
As a young doctor in Vienna in 1845 he was appalled by the staggering death rate by infection of women who gave birth in hospitals. While most children were born at home at that time, usually the homeless or sick, gave birth to their children in the local hospitals.
The level of infectious puerperal (childbed) fever was horrendous with between 15 and 30 percent of such mothers dying in hospital. At that time this tragic situation was considered normal. Dr. Semmelweis noted that every morning the young interns examined the bodies of the mothers who had died and then immediately, without washing their hands, went to the next ward where they would examine the expectant mothers.
Semmelweis insisted that the doctors under his supervision wash their hands vigorously in water and chlorinated lime prior to examining their patients. Immediately, the mortality rate caused by infection among the expectant mothers fell to less than 2 percent dying due to these infections. Despite these fantastic improvements the senior hospital staff despised Dr. Semmelweis's medical innovations and eventually fired him. Most of his medical colleagues rejected his new techniques and ridiculed his demands that they wash their hands because they could not believe infections could be caused by something invisible to the naked eye.
Later he took a position in the St. Rochus Hospital, Pest, Hungary [Budapest],which was experiencing an epidemic of puerperal fever in the ward where mothers were giving birth. Immediately, his new sanitary procedures had a positive effect, with the mortality rate dropping to less than 1 percent instead of the 15 percent that was normal in other hospitals.
During the following six years, he received the approval of the Hungarian government which sent medical advisory letters to all district authorities demanding that all medical staff follow Dr. Semmelweis's sanitation instructions. Although the beneficial results of washing hands were obvious, the medical establishments of Europe and North America continued to ignore his techniques. Patients continued to die needlessly of infectious diseases while they were in the hospital. Decades of rejection by his colleagues finally drove Dr. Semmelweis to a nervous breakdown that placed him in a mental institution. Tragically, due to an infection he received through a cut on his hand during an operation in 1865, Dr. Semmelweis succumbed to the same disease he spent his life trying to alleviate. Dr. Joseph Lister, the father of modern antisepsis (the science of fighting infection), said of him, "I think with the greatest admiration of him and his achievement."
wow now thinking that evolution is correct is "liberal", this is how far donw we have gone.
at least they're more sensible there.
Intelligent Design my azz.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I am a scientist and a religious nut. Science, to me, doesn't dismiss the existence of a "Prime Mover" but enforce this existence through the Universe's demonstrable order.
The scientific discipline teaches us that we should be open to all potential influences on a particular area of study if we wish to find the answer.
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
I'd encourage you to look at Science News. It's about $54 a year for a weekly magazine, which is twice as much as Scientific American. It's weekly, and I think around 16 pages, so you're getting only 64 pages a month, but there's a lot less advertising than SciAm.
But more importantly, the science reporting is a lot better. They usually report from the original journal articles in peer-reviewed journals, or from scientific conferences. When a science story comes out in the news I scan it but I don't believe it until it comes out in Science News. They don't just rewrite press releases (like most newspapers) and they certainly don't take the Wired approach of presenting scientific advances as being available at Target any day now.
Each issue contains two long-format articles that do run closer to the Scientific American model, which I think of as being more forward-looking than actual news. Sometimes they'll use them to examine one reasonably-current topic (like DNA testing) in depth, presenting an overview of the field and where the next likely advances are coming. Not blue-sky stuff, but reporting on the state of scientific research.
But the most important thing about Science News for me is that it's a weekly look at real science conducted by scientists, written for technically-minded laymen. The articles are usually around a half-page, containing a summary of the research. It's where the real work in science gets done. Waiting for it to come out in Scientific American is often months, which is dull for the kind of everyday advances made by scientists who do work (as opposed to the people who wonder if it means we're going to have time travel).
I read both SciAm and Science News, but the latter I read almost immediately whereas the former I scan and maybe get back to later.
I think the funniest thing would have been to replace Slashdot's homepage with a RIAA domain takeover notice. Of course, with a link to the real page that you can spot after reading it a second.
They can tell me where to get a Spaghetti Tree.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Happy April Fool's Day!
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
Ha Ha. ...
*ahem*
[looks for a real science article]
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
It makes you my mortal enemy.
I don't get it.
it does not make you a fundametalist, it does make you unrealistic though If students had to learn all the sides of every issue, they would leave high-school at age 50.
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.
Sweet! Maybe I will finally have use for those little bubble icons.
I think you are not a Creationist then. That almost requires the literal interpretation of a particular holy text (that's your Biblical Creationism").
Most creationists I meet would not consider you one of them. Actually they would probably consider your view worst than the "communist atheistic evolutionism", because you have a chance of being heard by their "herd".
"These people operate on free government grants, are are under no requirement to actually generate any applicable results" last time I looked most scientist operate in the private sector. "Their argument is purely based on a liberal political opposition because the plan is championed by republicans." It think it's the other way around actualy. Republican never where pro-creationist until a large part of their support came from their support came from the Evangelical vote
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.
You will find this book free online at the publisher's site.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Kinda bitter for an April fool's joke. Not that I blame them.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Well I was referring to academic scientists. What I had in mind is most of my wife's co-workers at UPenn, who are radically liberal in general. I should have been more specific.
Also, I don't agree that Republicans are pro-creationist. My argument about creationism was unrelated to my argument about politics affecting scientist's objectivity.
Once again, perhap I could have been more clear...
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
They're not saying faith is bad. They're saying that people who think faith is enough scientific evidence to validate the unscientific are rediculous.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
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.
"I will use the preview button for all posts."
Pardon me while I go type that 100 times.
I also subscribe to Science News ... which incedentally sometimes beats Slashdot to the punch on some science stories. I know it's weird that a print mag would have a story sooner than the web, but it happens.
Further, I think the writing is great. To parrot the parent a little. It's more accessible (i.e., they define terms, provide simple explication). You don't have to be as geeky as this crowd to still get the full effect of each piece, so your kids might get something out of it too. I'm no materials engineer, but found the long-form article on advances in cement interesting and informative (for example: translucent cement?!).
I don't want to get in a price argument (I don't love it because it's cheap), so I'm going with value. I'd say for the value it wins out over Nature, or SciAm, maybe even Smithsonian. If you don't have the ~$300 a year it would take you to subscribe to all four (just about anyone can get the 'pro' rate for Nature at $130/yr) and could only get just one, I would encourage Science News. If nothing else, it's a good overview of the weeks interesting stuff, and since they cite the other journals you can head off to the library if you need more info than they provide.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I was not saying that Republican where Creationist. What I said was that the cause of teaching Creationism in schoold have been espoused by the Republicans since a lot of their support has come from Evangelicals. As a Canadian is miss the days where my neighbours where Americans as opposed to Republicans and Democrats.
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 "Theory of Evolution" (or at least what you mean by that) never predicted the existance of a species "in transition". I always wondered where that strawman came from. Every species is a "transition" between what came before and what is to come. No one is looking for a half-cat half-dog fossil. It makes no sense.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No, I know Merlin and had an email account and webspace there until the site was shut down.
Clever boy!
Of course I know. Interspersed throughout all those articles are ones Slashdot makes up, too, you know. Excuse me: you pinhead. Every year you whiny apologists turn out to voice support for this mindfuckingly stupid tradition and that shit gets old, too.
You don't get it -- there are no amusing bits to be gathered. None. When presented with the spam of threads in prior to unheard of volume, the humor gets lost in the depravity of it all. I do spend many days a year without slashdot, and in fact have not posted a comment in a year and 4 months prior to this. But it's so absolutely lame that I felt I had to say something. And you're part of the problem.
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?
Hmmm, teach both sides of the issue. Well what are the two sides? Evolution and Creationism? Who's creationism? Ever ask Inuit, or the Aboriginals on the origins of the Universe? You see these folks still very much believe in their legends. Who is to say that they are not right, and the Christian's wrong?
You see here is where Christian creationists loose the argument, and why I stopped believing in religion. The creationists say everything came from God. Yet when somebody else says otherwise they are wrong, and yet they cannot give a logical argument on why they are wrong.
Lets play the argument this way. I say the aboriginals and Inuit are right on the origins of the universe and world. Why? They have been able to live on this planet without destroying themselves. Remember pollution, species extinction, and other ills have been the result of the white man!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
A university media study showed that Fox News was the most centrist news organization out there.
I have read that study (have you?) the methodology leaves much to be desired in that they are measuring how many times an organization cites a "liberal" or "conservative" think tank. That is it. So if you never cite your sources you are totally center? Also the language seems purposely obfuscated to make it sound more "scientific" They don't even talk about the actual study for like 4 pages. Seems like choosing facts to fit your hypothesis instead of the other way around.
Mmmmm, Karma Whoring Goodness..... Now, that's good eatin'!
Anonymous Cowards suck.
You are correct, of course. There is no scientific reason that this would not work. Saying "this will never work" is very unscientific: it is like someone laughing at the Wright brothers 100 years ago.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The "problem" is that you know what it's going to be like -- it's the same every year -- yet you come here to read it anyway.
Why? Why! Jesus Christ, why?
In the future, please spare yourself the agony.
Kill, Tux, kill!
And it's making you Americans the laughing stock of the scientific world.
Ah, at last, there's the demarcation. Everyone who reads Wired but doesn't watch Drew Carey is prone to using the word meme to describe cultural ideas... :-D Otherwise persons must use the less effecient expression "cultural idea".
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
The point that Scientific American seems to have missed here is that the difference between "creationism", "creation science", and "Intelligent Design" is not that the first two hold to YHWH and the latter holds to some unspecified force, but that Intelligent Design beings with a reasoned and informed critique of evolution rather than beginning with the book of Genesis.
(I should acknowledge that there is certainly something of a continuum among Intelligent Design advocates, from those who are scientifically well informed to those who ... aren't. It has become somewhat fashionable among the creationist crowd to seize on ID as the justification of their beliefs. But if people using science to justify wacky religious beliefs disqualifies the science, then there are quite a few other theories that should be placed in abeyance. We could start with Relativity and go from there.)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I used to read Wired, but the layout and graphic design was horrible. It even made "Aintitcoolnews.com" look good. They thought that it was cool to do stuff like dark purple letters on all black pages. Or light-green letters on a chartruese background. What fun! Wall Street Journal should buy them out and kick out the current puce-on-purple-print pandering publishers and invoke some basic "make it readable" standards. I loved the articles, however. Get rid of the "we are so cool because we published our contents page with fucshia Eaglefeather fonts on a lavender background" guys.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Moderation should only be done in moderation.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Realize that there are some people for whom changing the channel is not enough. They get a real thrill that they have removed Fox from the wires, no matter how short the length of the wires. Striking a blow for silencing those they do not like. Fox News get the last laugh: these Foxblocker guys are paying for it but not receiving it.
Anyone care to explain why the right felt no need to invent "The Rathernot (tm)" dan rather filter that blocked CBS? Or the "Ted Turnoff" CNN blocker?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I agree. When I read this article, I am appalled by what appears to me a mockery of thinking outside of accepted standards. I'm not talking about the evolutionary theory here, although they are plainly slapping people of faith in the face. But they even go so far as to mock people for not believing the majority accepted theory of global warming. How can a legitimate scientific magazine preemptively mock any attempt of disproving the theory of Global Warming? It makes the peer review process sound like a social, or even religious club. You believe like we believe or you don't get to play with us. It's disgusting.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Creationism and it's change to ID (intelligent design) kind of remind me of the Global Cooling theorists, which are nowadays referred to as Global Warming advocates.
For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
This is no April 1st joke. The leading global warmning advocate, Stephen H. Schneider, was originally a global cooling advocate. To this day, he and many other climatologists are "media whores" about global temperatures. In fact, I would even go so far as to argue it's a prerequiste to getting in a peer-reviewed journal.
correction: .. on what God is or is not....
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The theory of the universe being composed of 4 elements, earth, fire, wind, and water needs to get equal time with this so called chemistry theory. I mean when's the chemistry theory going to stop adding elements to that silly periodic table of theirs. It's just further proof that they didn't get it right the first time!
I prefer to believe the world consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire.
I don't even no where to begin,
Reading this article from SciAm was like picking at a scab on my arm, and now I all of the sudden, I am bleeding all over the place.
What I find truly frightening, is the complete abandonment of the fundamentals of critical thinking on the part of so many people these days, regardless of where they are in the political/sociological spectrum. I used to think this was only the case with people on the extreme ends of the various points of view, and that there was a non-vociferous majority somewhere in the middle, that thought and behaved rationaly, and based decisions on observable fact, or only when absolutely necessary on logical and limited assumptions. But as I watch our civilization go down the tubes, I am forced to admit, that it seems in fact, that irrational postulating and assertion based on prejudice and superstition, are the norm.
I long ago gave up on "Scientific American" as a journal of science, they have long sinced abandoned (if they ever did) reporting on real scientific research favor of promoting the questionable "progressive" agendas of liberal idealogues through use of pseudo-scientific gobbly-de-gook.
In this respect they reflect same attitudes and prejudices of most of what passes for todays scientists, particularly those working in U.S. and European academia. The disciplines of the Scientific Method and Objective Observation have been completely destroyed by the modern liberal "intelligentsia", in an effort to promote "progressive" social "theories" in the soft sciences.
It is this reductionism in the discipline of science that has allowed the right wing religous fruit cakes, promulgate Creationism as a viable alternative to Evolutionary theory as an explanation for the existence of Homo Sapiens.
It still astounds me, that in this day and age that anyone would choose superstition over observed fact. That christians can stand up and with a straight face proclaim that their mythology is valid at all, much less any more valid than any of a hundred other mythologies generated by primitive man, boggles the mind.
For those of you of the superstitious bent, let me help you with what a theory is. A theory is a logical description of natural processes that is derived from observed facts. The theory of evolution is currently the best description available for the observed facts of genetic inheritance, and the progressive transformation of living creatures. A theory is NOT an assertion based on belief in the boogeyman, i.e. Creationism.
Religon is and always will be the enemy of knowledge, anyone who has ever read Genesis and Ecclesiastes (from the real bible, not that pre-digested, "modernized" pap known as the King James) knows this.
If there is anyone out there who I haven't managed to piss off, let me know, I will get to you next.
my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
Of course. We know that any religion other than your own is very bad, and is the enemy of knowledge.
"....anyone who has ever read Genesis and Ecclesiastes ... knows this."
Yes. We all know that you can learn everything about every single religion in the world by reading these two books of the Christian Bible. Any more profundities?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The creationism story, as far as it goes, as written in many theological texts is valid, as far as it goes.
What most of the people who take these texts as given fact, don't take into consideration, is that they were intended for ignorant people.
Consider, at the time of writing, did anyone have a clue in regards to genetics, biology, cellular structure, dna, rna, chemistry?
No, they were, for the most part, simple shepherds, slaves, manual laborers...
If these stories had been written explaining, in detail, the processes used to "create" the animals from "dirt" (aka carbon), people would have zoned out and forgotten, not believed.
If the stories stated that a partial genetic leg taken from the not quite X not quite Y chromosome of early man was removed from the male side of the species, and attached to the female side, making XY and XX chromosome pairs to differentiate, the original hermaphroditic version of man, the people would have tuned out, not believed, failed to follow.
So the stories were simplified, homogenized, and all the "science" removed, until such time that it simply became "creation", because nothing could be explained in terms that humans at the time would understand.
Let's just say, that if your chosen deity's representative were to show up today, instead of then, the stories, sermons, explanations given would not be so simplistic.
JM2CW....
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Christianity has held up many major discoveries.
That said, I think evolution is a much better workable theory than "God did it" but there is a dogmatic aspect towards evolution within the scientific community, as there are . . . flaws . . . holes . . . fringe cases . . . whatever you want to call them that make current evolutionary theory a little more flimsy than current science wishes it was.
That said, a lot of the holes are being filled or explained through scientific analysis which is great stuff, but our current model does have a lot of work to go.
P.S. religion is a bunch of happy horseshit. If you want to believe in Jesus Claus that's up to you, but I'd try avoiding mixing it with rational thought and science.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
And naturally, I put in my weak ass $.02 before reading your post and now I can't upmod ya. I blame Christianity.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
However, if you actually want to hear something about evolution, creationism or ID that is, in fact, true, go somewhere else. Even the description text for the articles posted to it have more spin on them than a World Series knuckleball.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
You don't have to remind me. I know. However, the swelling does go down a little bit with Preparation H. Oh. POLAr.... oh never mind.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
That is as profound as commenting that Rush Limbaugh has problems with CNN. Is it even worth pointing out that political pressure groups like to bash those who do not share their views?
"There is no liberal news on fox"
Their liberal personalities are quite numerous, even if they are outnumbered and overwhelmed by the conservatives (Hannity vs Colmes...). Your statement shows that you have: 1) never watched it and think that Hannity has one 24-hour show. or 2) think that Neal Gabler and David Corn are conservatives.
As for CNN, NPR, BBC, left wing, right wing, there are two problems. They have not changed. These three you mentioned are still a little to the left of the center, while Fox is to the right of center and Limbaugh/AM Talk more to the right. What has happened here is that you have moved away from the center and have used your point-of-view firmly in the left wing as the "new center". From this view, everything is right wing.
It is a common thing to see 'wingers proclaim that everything that is not in their extreme is part of the OTHER wing. I've seen many far right wingers call Rush Limbaugh a left-wing socialist.
"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."
I have probably more than you ever have, along with the blatantly conservative stuff. Both reveal a lot about their own biases, and how out of the mainstream they are. They reveal little about "news" itself. How can they? They are just opinion-page ranters and pundits when you get right down to it.
"Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers"
Rabid conservatives like Tom Harkin and Jesse Jackson? The problem with your phony conspiracy theories is that any whiff of fact blows them away in the wind. As for insisting on things being local issues, many things aren't and for good reason. The civil rights struggles in the soutn in the 1960s also come to mind. Many thought that this "Should have been a local/regional issue at most".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If by "Biblical faith" you mean "the kind of faith Jesus asked for", then yes, it does mean just that. See John 20:29:
Could Jesus possibly have expressed clearer approval of "blind faith" than by saying, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"?
The context, by the way, is that the apostle Thomas has been told that Jesus has risen from the grave, but (understandably, I think) is not convinced until he sees and touches Jesus himself. Jesus is scolding Thomas for his empiricism, and praising the blind faith of his other followers.
All that is not to say that the Bible presents a consistent message on faith (the Bible is not a particularly self-consistent document, in general) - but the teachings of Jesus, as reported in the Bible, do specifically endorse "blind" faith - faith in the absence of evidence. And that is certainly the kind of faith that is the basis of the belief of millions of Christians (though not all, of course), like it or not.
The BadBlocker. We have attached cable TV jacks to both ends of a wooden spool. If you insert this in your cable line, you can be 100% assured that you will not see anything that will offend you on TV. Not only is Fox blocked, but there goes Tom Brokaw and Barney too.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sarcasm is the weapon of the weak my friend. People who have no rational or serious argument, resort to sarcasm. It is a dirty ploy to try to tarnish the credibility of those who disagree with them.
I agree the extreme creationists get too much press. I also agree that creationism does not belong in Science class. However, I would suggest also, that spirituality (i don't care what kind) is an essential part of the human condition, and there should be a class for that too. If nothing else it could serve to provide children with the understanding that there are basic human rights (many of which are set down in things like the geneva convention, and exist in a common ofrm in most major religions...) which all people are entitled too. Many parents complain that schools fail to assist with, or even undermine, the parents efforts to provide their children with a basic moral compass. Public schools (I speak from experience here..) ingrain in kids that the world is a nasty, hateful place; that the USA is the rottenest, most corrupt country on earth; and that it is taboo to even DISCUSS certain issues like race, affirmative action, welfare, creationism, etc...(basically anything that doesn't line up with a liberal/secular-humanist agenda).
So, some christian parents home-school their kids, then the pop culture makes a pointed issue of this, as if it's a joke and not a real education.
Scientific American should stick to science, and stop bitching about their political beefs, or the fact that christians are no longer fed to lions. If they represented the IT community at large(which I am a part of), I would be embarassed by their stupidity and avarice. Hence, I am glad they don't.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I've said many things on many issues. At one time, I must have said something that really did offend you. What do you tend to discuss or feel about other than creationism and the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Political science is supposed to be a discipline that is part of the social sciences, and applies the scientific method to the study of the political process. It is not supposed to mean, as per how SciAm operates, picking and choosing and coloring your science based on your political views.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Brin is an excellent science fiction writer. His "Infinity's Shore" books are among the best science fiction I've ever read. "Glory" is truly glorious. However, his nonfiction writings on many things, including his silly pseudo-socialistic attack on fantasy literature in general, leave much to be desired. I was an early subscriber to his personal mailing list (i.e.: he ran and contributed to it), but dropped out early on.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The answers to SciAm's questions are:
SciAm won't publish them. SciAm's founding author, Rufus Porter, was a Creationist, and SciAm won't publish them. On religious and political grounds. Nor will any other magazine that values any appearance of scientific orthodoxy.
Consider what happened to Dr Richard Sternberg when he let an Intelligent Designer's paper slip past him (and three peer reviewer and a Council member), which was so raw that it even got a mention in the Wall Street Journal. There are many such tales. Robert V Gentry even had articles ripped from Arxiv on suspicion of heresy. Index Librorum Prohibitorum, anybody? Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
Policy, pure and simple. Mary Higby Schweitzer recently found fresh flesh, bone structures, blood vessels etc in a 68 million year old fossilised T Rex bone in Montana. The news is sensational, in part because "it can't happen". Of course it can't. The 68 million years are a myth. And where's "Dinosaur Jack", Mary's supervisor in all of this? I'm guessing that her data is too close to being heresy, so he's taken a step back in case anything splashes on himself.
Policy again. Religion. Materialism. That the canyon was carved by water, nobody contests, but if it was carved slowly, where are the sediments? The silt deposits at Pierce Ferry are not only too small, but the wrong type. The only situation which fits is if the canyon were carved essentially all in one horrendous rush, which carried most of the silt out to sea. Palouse Canyon was so formed in a couple of days, why not the Grand Canyon in a week or so? Perhaps as much as 50% of the world's sedimentary rock is turbidite - formed all in one go, in minutes or hours not megayears.
There is more than one set of religious idiots about. Materialists are just as bad as any other religion, given their druthers. Islam hands out ricketts and suicide bombing assignments, Catholicism burns anyone they don't like as "a witch" or a "heathen" (yes, it still happens in some places), Materialism muffles any dissent and dismisses bulk unfairness as "evolution in action". Materialists like Stalin and Mao have murdered more people in the name of religion than all of the Inquisitions and Crusades rolled together. Not that the Crusaders - or their opponents - came away anything like clean-handed either.
The answer is not to avoid religion (it's essentially unavoidable anyway), but to avoid being an idiot. That's often much harder than going on a Jihad. Of any kind.
It'll be interesting to see if SciAm answers. At all, let alone sensibly.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The US public schools teach that America is the worst? Give me a break and cut the theatrics. Yeah, we learned a bit about the Indians and slavery, but do you think we omitted the Nazis, Saddam Hussein, the French Reign of Terror, Mussolini, the Holocaust, the Dreyfuss affair, British colonialism, Russian revolution, Chinese Communism, etc? Are you going to sit here and tell me that teachers give North Korea a pass? In my high school in NY, we did discuss race, affirmative action, reparations, and creationism, where did you go?
I think high schools do a good job of explaining the situation, and do teach students to love their country in a mature and productive manner. Maybe the way you want them to love their country is the way a 4-year-old loves their mommy; Anyone who criticizes her is bad.
What a way to strawman Scientific American, saying they wish Christians were still fed to lions. National Geographic did have a recent cover story: Was Darwin Wrong?
I believe the most common recommendation is "RTFA". If you go back up to the very top of this discussion (yes, there was a beginning), you will creation and missile defense mentioned. Both of them, in the same news story.
here is a shortcut.
In regards to the missile defense shield, it was first proposed as a reaction to the USSR's frequently and non-hidden announcements of global conquest (backed up with the presence of a military designed to carry out this plan). It had nothing to do with the US needing it because we "harmed" the Soviets. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/0 1/1359201&tid=99
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
heh
Well I can accept that maybe your school was different, But thats how it felt here in PA. Perhaps I was unfair to say that was the US schools in general, but what more can I have to go on than my own experience.
yknow what...I don't even know why I am bothering to reply here. Every time it's the same...somebody tries to tell me that everything I have seen and heard every day of my life was invalid, and that in some way I'm not entitled to my own damn opinions. Fine, If you want to go and believe that everything is all hunky-dory and all that BS then fine. I'll just shut up and you can all go fly...
I must be the only damn conservative on slashdot, cuz rarely if ever do I get any damn backup. So fine, I know when I've lost...I dont have the time or inclination to continue to beat my head against a liberal brick wall...
so fine, affirmative action is NOT inherently a racist policy...sure...
sure, its cool if clinton embarassed the country as a whole, but not if bush actually tries to DO something about saddam...
sure...the schools are fine, and its totally cool to leave god out.
I hope you are happy.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
What other term can be used to describe affirmative action, which is a policy designed to deny individuals opportunity based on their skin color (at the expense of others who get a free pass for their skin color)?
"but not if bush actually tries to DO something about saddam..."
Clinton, like Bush, retaliated against Iraq with bombs and other methods many times. He also spoke of the necessity of stopping Saddam. Bush, in some ways, continued the policy. If Clinton had been elected to one or more additional terms, there is a good chance that he would have escalated the retaliation efforts to put an end to Saddam's ongoing attacks and promotion of terrorism. Not perhaps with a full ground invasion, but maybe with an intensive bombing campaign to enforce the violated cease fire agreements.
The Democrats, like Kerry and Dean, who spoke out against Saddam under Clinton but for Saddam under Bush would have likely sided with Clinton in these efforts: just because the Commander in Chief would be in their party.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I figured the poor chap is laid up with a big bellyache. And the dino meat? You won't find it now! Put two and two together.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Free speech does not imply that any particular publisher is obliged to carry your ideas. If you don't like SciAm, try to get into New Scientist, or start your own magazine and try to get equal credibility. Bear in mind the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is not censorship: they just have the right not to publish what they consider bullshit. The foundation of the rationalist method is that you have the right to try to prove them wrong.
If this is suppression of heresy, it's pretty mild compared to most religions. Two hundred years ago in the west, or today in other countries, you could be fined or imprisioned or worse for publishing blasphemous material: anything that questions accepted dogma. People were burned for possessing forbidden books.
From a brief look at the orion web site it would seem that Gentry was booted for basically spamming the archive with ten variations of the same paper. All LANL wanted him to do was integrate them into a single one, and it seems he didn't because he wants to be a martyr. There is the same ridiculous confusion of "one publisher won't take my work" with "I'm being persecuted!" Typical.
Catholics and Muslisms (at the extreme) set off bombs; rationalists refuse to indulge cranks. How is that just as bad? Few religions respect freedom of conscience to the same extent as the modern western materialist-with-christian-undertones amalgum.
Did I say you weren't entitled to your opinions? Did I say that everything you experienced in life is invalid? Living in PA, you may have seen a lot of what you are saying, but I don't believe that you saw it "every day of my life" as you put it. Sounds like an exaggeration to me that you were taught about the evilness of America daily.
/., I'm one depending on the issue. I just don't see the point in bringing up Clinton here, as you did. Don't go strawmanning me, did I say the schools are fine? When did I give you any impression that it's ok to leave God out of schools? When the principal led the graduating class in the pledge of allegiance, there was a widespread booing from the crowd when he left out "under God."
Cheer up, there are lots of conservatives on
As a former subscriber of SciAm (still read it now and then) I wish this was true, and I don't care if the political slant is left, right, up, or down it still pains me to see (some) scientists playing politics while at the same time complaining about (some) politicians playing science... it renders their arguments moot and hypocritical and weakens any science they're involved in, sometimes even reducing it to uninteresting opinionated squabbles.
I don't think SA is all that bad but sometimes one wonders if perhaps a little less arrogance (both scientifically and otherwise) as well as less ivory tower utopianism would do good. After all they're meant to read and review/edit the articles... sometimes they and/or the article submitters should be slightly embarrased by the replies they print/give to critical letters.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]