I read the magazine through high school as part of UIL competition. I loved it and it continued to be great through the 90s. Its a shadow of its former self.
The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
71–80 of 247 posts
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#72Some of their pieces on the blog site read completely like satire (unfortunately they are not), it baffles me how a sane person can write something like that https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fat-is-not... tldr it's because the oppression
I cracked up when I saw the name of the author to the link you posted. Some sort of comic joke or destiny.
For those wanting to know, her surname is "Bacon".
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for that list. I really miss the quality content that Scientific American had in their issue from the 70s and 80s.
I spent hours and hours reading SA, PopSci, Omni and others at my library in the 80's. It was high quality content and much of it was highly detailed long-form writing.
I still remember my high school physics teacher literally used a scientific American special on quantum mechanics to explore the topic for a month. Really good
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly recommend watching the new Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson. When it first came out I made a big production of it with my kids. They got to eat popcorn and drink soda while we all watched the series together. They (and I) still look back on it fondly.
I would suggest passing on Neil deGrasse Tyson or at least taking a second look. His smugness alone is enough reason for me to not have anyone, especially kids, look up to him. Not to mention, he's often just flat out wrong. I personally cannot stand even seconds of hearing him speak, and I find him insufferable. It's his lack of humility that really gets to me. The original Cosmos is still available, and it's quite…
Does anybody else wonder at people who insist on using three names? Some actors do it, too, like Hayley Joel Osment and Brian Taylor Green. It just seems pretentious to me, like somebody insisting on using a title outside of their official duties.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non…
The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the…
I agree with you but they had just spent the entire interview talking about that. It was an awkward shoehorn to say the least.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#76NOVA has been undergoing a similar decline. The latest episode was about the nanoarchitecture of butterfly wings, which is a fascinating topic. A researcher mimicked the nano structure onto a piece of metal, a disk the size of a nickel, which is so hydrophobic that two disks close to each other would float, as it had essentially a bubble trapped between them. The subtext of the show was about "combating climate chang…
On another episode, "The Universe Revealed: Big Bang", the presenters said: "Somewhere there was a first planet that formed in the entire universe. We'll never know about it. We'll never know when it formed or what its fate was. But it formed somewhere!"
That’s certainly dumb but doesn’t strike me as dumbed down. More like some cynic trying to do a bad parody of Carl Sagan.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#77I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural? Which ignores a huge amount of differences. To pick one eusocial insects of the same species are closely related to the ones they serve, and how slavery is not universal. Family and kinship groups are probably a way better metaphor than slavery. Occasionally some insect…
Plenty of things are natural that are considered immoral.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
On another episode, "The Universe Revealed: Big Bang", the presenters said: "Somewhere there was a first planet that formed in the entire universe. We'll never know about it. We'll never know when it formed or what its fate was. But it formed somewhere!"
That’s certainly dumb but doesn’t strike me as dumbed down. More like some cynic trying to do a bad parody of Carl Sagan.
Watch the episode. It's pretty dumbed down. Even if you realize that there's only 5 minutes worth of material in a 50 minute show. The filler I quoted is just an example.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#79Something like 15 years ago I was at a conference and happened to sit at lunch table with a top editor of Scientific American. (Maybe the top one at the time, I don't remember.) I had been an enthusiastic subscriber for many years and still subscribed at that point, although I was concerned that it seemed to be dumbing itself down. I mentioned that to the editor. I forget the exact words I used, but they were an atte…
> the magazine had to have an audience
They could have opted to bring the audience up to the magazine. But that is The Road Not Taken.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest passing on Neil deGrasse Tyson or at least taking a second look. His smugness alone is enough reason for me to not have anyone, especially kids, look up to him. Not to mention, he's often just flat out wrong. I personally cannot stand even seconds of hearing him speak, and I find him insufferable. It's his lack of humility that really gets to me. The original Cosmos is still available, and it's quite…
Does anybody else wonder at people who insist on using three names? Some actors do it, too, like Hayley Joel Osment and Brian Taylor Green. It just seems pretentious to me, like somebody insisting on using a title outside of their official duties.
Actors at least have a good excuse: there are various rules in the industry and/or unions requiring unique names (stage names, if necessary) for certain things.