Scientific American is the bomb.

[Urban Ranger]

Good one

[Dinner]

Scientific American is the bomb.

The lead editorial from Scientific Americans April 2005 issue:


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 so-called 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 scienfically 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 either - 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.

- THE EDITIORS editors@sciam.com

[DanS]

I canceled my subscription to Scientific American during the election because they were printing "science" fluff pieces for democrats.

It's a shame, really. I never subscribed to SciAm to be proseletyzed by political hacks disguising themselves as scientists.

[TCO]

Efficacy of developmental BMD systems is not a "science question".

[Bill3000]

Awesome.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by DanS
I canceled my subscription to Scientific American during the election because they were printing "science" fluff pieces for democrats.

It's a shame, really. I never subscribed to SciAm to be proseletyzed by political hacks disguising themselves as scientists.

Considering the fact that republicans support measures that would hinder scientific progress, I'm not suprised that they would support the democrats, and you shouldn't either.

[Dinner]

I'm going to have to get a subscription to SA because they deserve the support. How dare they claim that scientific knowledge and principles should be used to inform policies and then they have the nerve to point out when politicians and religious figures make blatant errors/misrepresentations of scientific facts. I mean how dare tose scientist think they know there own fields better then some political hack or religious nutjob.

These editorial is the bomb because it is simply the truth.

[DanS]

I'm going to have to get a subscription to SA because they deserve the support.

Nobody has stopped you or even discouraged you from donating to political causes that you support.

[Dinner]

Science isn't a political cause though some people have tried to make anti-science a political cause. There is only good and bad science and Scientific American has been a great watch dog to pointing out junk science especially religiously based pseudoscience designed to fool people.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i just reordered the economist

[DanS]

Well, AmSci disagrees with you. They imply that science is indeed a political cause.

[Bill3000]

Of course science is a political cause. Scientists are their own faction; sure obviously they have more credibility then other factions that are based more on morals. Still, scientists have interests in the government and wish to have a say just like everybody else.

Of course, I ironically am now a stout believer in technocracy. Those of you who remember me in the old story threads 6 years ago would die from the irony right now.

[Agathon]

@ DanS abandoning science for the Republican Party.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Of course, I ironically am now a stout believer in technocracy. Those of you who remember me in the old story threads 6 years ago would die from the irony right now.

What did you believe back then?

[MRT144]

dans when did you become a complete fanboy for bush