16 replies to this topic

[ILikePluto]

Michael Shermer got his first clue that things were changing at Scientific American in late 2018. The author had been writing his “Skeptic” column for the magazine since 2001. His monthly essays, aimed at an audience of both scientists and laymen, championed the scientific method, defended the need for evidence-based debate, and explored how cognitive and ideological biases can derail the search for truth. Shermer’s role models included two twentieth-century thinkers who, like him, relished explaining science to the public: Carl Sagan, the ebullient astronomer and TV commentator; and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote a popular monthly column in Natural History magazine for 25 years. Shermer hoped someday to match Gould’s record of producing 300 consecutive columns. That goal would elude him....

 

Link:  Unscientific American by James B. Meigs

[TOMDEY]

Interesting and not surprising. Sky & Tel.    Tom

[dusty99]

Biased article in a known biased publication.  I still occasionally read SA more than 40 years since I first subscribed (my university gets it electronically), but you have to remember that it is journalism and not a platform for primary research findings.  The flagship journals in most fields are still available, even if most have gone to electronic editions.

Edited by dusty99, 06 May 2024 - 11:57 AM.

[BrentKnight]

I subscribed probably a couple decades ago.  I loved the semi-pro flavor of the magazine but noticed that I wasn't reading the entire magazine each month (often way too much brain exercise) and so I let it laps.  I've always respected the magazine though but when I checked an issue out a couple years ago it was just so annoying how the feel of the issue felt like I was being taught how I should think instead of giving me food for thought.  I guess it's gotten even worse now - shame.

 

Mike...

 

I have to ask...did you re-subscribe to Sky & Telescope?

[TOMDEY]

I used to enjoy Scientific American for many decades, but don't anymore; I used to enjoy Sky&Tel for decades, but don't anymore; I have been enjoying Astronomy since its inception... and still do. The difference is preachy, preachy, vs astronomy.    Tom

Edited by TOMDEY, 07 May 2024 - 07:28 AM.

[kgb]

Interesting. The article linked to is from city-journal, but that is just a front for the Manhattan Institute (a think tank). Pretty rich that it complains of bias when it, itself, is known to be a biased organization.

I imagine that this article was written as retaliation for the Scientific American article, “Attacks on Diversity in Higher Education Threaten Democracy,” which criticized a self-published 2023 report from the Manhattan Institute. In that article, Scientific American pointed out that the unscientific nature of the Manhattan Institute study would never hold up under peer review by an academic journal.

Edited by kgb, 07 May 2024 - 08:34 AM.

[BrentKnight]

Interesting. The article linked to is from city-journal, but that is just a front for the Manhattan Institute (a think tank). Pretty rich that it complains of bias when it, itself, is known to be a biased organization.

I imagine that this article was written as retaliation for the Scientific American article, “Attacks on Diversity in Higher Education Threaten Democracy,” which criticized a self-published 2023 report from the Manhattan Institute. In that article, Scientific American pointed out that the unscientific nature of the Manhattan Institute study would never hold up under peer review by an academic journal.

I try to take any media "news" with a grain of salt.  The only reliable source is here on CN (where everyone has their own take on things).

[davidpitre]

Michael Shermer was let go from his Scientific American editorial five years ago.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that he was let go. He has no one to blame but himself.
His columns were veering into the political with continued citations from right wing political sources, such as The City Journal which is itself a mouthpiece for the Manhattan Institute, an overtly political group with no ties to legitimate science, certainly not a source one would cite In a legitimate science based article.
Among Schermer’s questionable and fringe articles was the one where he denied that victims of childhood **** abuse were more likely to become abusers as they got older. Kind of hard for the Scientific American to stand behind that kind of thing.

Edited by davidpitre, 09 May 2024 - 03:49 PM.

[desertstars]

Interesting. The article linked to is from city-journal, but that is just a front for the Manhattan Institute (a think tank). Pretty rich that it complains of bias when it, itself, is known to be a biased organization.

I imagine that this article was written as retaliation for the Scientific American article, “Attacks on Diversity in Higher Education Threaten Democracy,” which criticized a self-published 2023 report from the Manhattan Institute. In that article, Scientific American pointed out that the unscientific nature of the Manhattan Institute study would never hold up under peer review by an academic journal.

This.

 

I'd stopped reading Shermer's column before it was cut off, and didn't notice its absence for several issues. Clearly not a great loss to science journalism.

[ILikePluto]

The British Medical Journal slams Scientific American:  https://www.bmj.com/...t/385/bmj.q1141

 

"Neither [editor-in-chief] Helmuth nor the magazine’s publisher, Springer Nature, responded to a detailed email . . . . "

[HorseBadorties]

Does this thread have anything whatsoever to do with astronomy?

[kgb]

That settles it. The fact that SA didn't provide any editorial space for a solitary report commissioned by Britain's NHS is conclusive evidence that Michael Shermer was right. Excellent detective work. I'm convinced.

[AstroVPK]

I used to enjoy Scientific American for many decades, but don't anymore; I used to enjoy Sky&Tel for decades, but don't anymore; I have been enjoying Astronomy since its inception... and still do. The difference is preachy, preachy, vs astronomy. Tom

S&T definitely has an agenda, though it's mild compared to SiAm.

Edited by AstroVPK, 12 July 2024 - 10:55 AM.

[KBHornblower]

I dropped my Scientific American subscription over 20 years ago when an editor got snarky with me when I called him on a technical error.  He had referred to fast-burning massive stars as something like "the SUVs of the heavens."  I merely pointed out that unlike heavy stars, heavy motor vehicles generally have a lower fuel consumption rate in proportion to their mass.  His misuse of a hot-button vehicle type as a metaphor, and his sour reaction to my remarks, let me to infer a political agenda bleeding into a purely astronomical topic.

[rockethead26]

I dropped my Scientific American subscription over 20 years ago when an editor got snarky with me when I called him on a technical error.  He had referred to fast-burning massive stars as something like "the SUVs of the heavens."  I merely pointed out that unlike heavy stars, heavy motor vehicles generally have a lower fuel consumption rate in proportion to their mass.  His misuse of a hot-button vehicle type as a metaphor, and his sour reaction to my remarks, let me to infer a political agenda bleeding into a purely astronomical topic.

But, SUVs DO run out of fuel faster than sedans. Which of you is right??? I think you picked the wrong fight.

[KBHornblower]

Here is my reasoning, which I included in my letter to the editor.  My light truck, about 3,000 pounds, gets about 20mpg at highway speeds.  I rode in a 30,000 pound bus in which the driver reported getting about 5mpg.  Its absolute burn rate was only about 4 times that of my truck in spite of its having 10 times the mass.  A 10-solar-mass star has perhaps 10,000 times the Sun's burn rate.  I stand by what I wrote to the editor. 

 

If my truck had a diesel engine it might get 30mpg.  It would still be behind the bus in burn rate to mass ratio.  I trust the bus driver's word because it is in accordance with the detailed log he kept as required by law.

[vsteblina]

I just ran into a Scientific America article on forest management in northwestern Montana.  Sad.

 

I worked in the ecological type early in my career not in timber management, but in recreation management.

 

The article was about a "reformed" oil and gas geologists and his viewpoints on forest management.  He probably NEVER took any classes in ecology, let alone silviculture.  I at least had ONE class in geology.  Maybe Scientific America will print my views on the oil and gas prospects in the next century!!

 

I tried to write a comment to the journalist that wrote the article, but for this.....  "for privacy concerns, Scientific America keeps the addresses of its authors private". 

 

The defeats the purpose of an open scientific discussion.

 

It is a shame, they did a great video on Giant Sequoia ecology and the destruction of the Sequoia groves through wildfire.  They interviewed a couple of graduate school foresters from UC Berkeley, that were working on their thesis projects in the groves.  That was interesting; and great science journalism. 

 

It would have been more interesting if Scientific America allowed the Chad Hanson, the landscape ecologist for the Sierra Club, to explain why the Sierra Club is fighting tooth and nail efforts to protect the giant sequoia's and their disagreements with the accepted science.

 

More and more media outlets are limiting discussion on science issues and publishing only "accepted" views. 

 

It does not bode well for scientific inquiry in the future.