Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#91

Post by barry-cotter »

mperham wrote: post #38
modeless wrote: post #36

What can I put in my house today that will let my children discover science and physics the way Scientific American let me discover them as a teenager?

Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.

If a scientific periodical had an article written by a flat earther that would be bad. If there was a torrent of criticism and the editor defended the article with vigour you would write off the entire periodical. The article discussed above is just as bad as flat earth, but with different polital valence.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#92

Post by WalterBright »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #89
WalterBright wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sometimes the media does it, which is a good thing for people with different middle names. Here are a few examples I thought of. Not good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

LHO just seemed to call himself Lee Oswald, indeed the 3 names seem to be a media creation.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#93

Post by jimkleiber »

mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

Your comment has me wondering about history and whether such previous drastic changes in communication technology have also brought waves of censorship, both by others and by ourselves. For example, with radio, the telephone, or even the printing press. In other words, not only the ability to publish/broadcast, but to have people reply to your publishing or broadcasting. I also wonder if we somehow adapt to it as we learn these new ways to communicate.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#94

Post by pengstrom »

WalterBright wrote: post #74
bmitc wrote: post #64

Earlier 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.

Many people have multiple equal family names. Leaving one out would be as wrong as adding another. Names are never simple.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#95

Post by mmaunder »

jimkleiber wrote: post #93
mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

Your comment has me wondering about history and whether such previous drastic changes in communication technology have also brought waves of censorship, both by others and by ourselves. For example, with radio, the telephone, or even the printing press. In other words, not only the ability to publish/broadcast, but to have people reply to your publishing or broadcasting. I also wonder if we somehow adapt to it as we…

Those breakthroughs had gatekeepers, for better or worse. Publishing house owners, newspaper owners/editors, radio station supervisors and owners. For the first time in all of history we can all publish instantly to everyone else at no cost. It’s a very exciting time and is, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#96

Post by bmitc »

ribs wrote: post #90
bmitc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Medium have to do with anything I wrote?

Medium is where the piece we’re talking about was posted - “The Shameful Decline…”. While the article in SA does seem appalling, I don’t see this single article’s publication as justification for this broad indictment of SA. It’s concerning, yes. But it’s ONE ARTICLE, and that’s all the piece talks about. OP may well be right, but they haven’t shown it by the citing of ONE ARTICLE.

I was not and am not commenting on the Medium article. I was referring to the Scientific American article.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...

For me, it's enough to think something is seriously wrong there at Scientific American. The more I think about it, the more the article makes little sense to me. I can't even understand what it has to do with E.O. Wilson. The timing of the article would imply that the article was written in just a couple of days by a recurring author. So they used the death of a notable scientist to push some agenda.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#97

Post by dehrmann »

AareyBaba wrote: post #88
WalterBright wrote: post #59

NOVA 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…

The problem with NOVA in this TikTok era is the hour long format that was designed for broadcast TV. A topic with 10 minutes of material is stretched into 45 minutes with unnecessary drama and reenactments as filler. Like the kids say these days 'Ain't nobody got time for that'. I'd rather watch a 10 min video on Youtube that covers the same topic.

Youtubers stretch 30 seconds of material in 10 minutes.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#98

Post by derac »

Maursault wrote: post #33

I am not defending SJW in saying this, merely pointing out a clear and obvious fallacy and a shameful one considering those who submit and post here that use it. Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all. It ignores all argument for the sake of, I presume, insult. It is fundamentally tribalistic. Insulting or denigrating the…

The article uses the word woke twice, in reference to a specific sort of ideology. It isn't ad homing the author(s).

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#99

Post by [deleted] »

merpnderp wrote: post #43
WesternWind wrote: post #32

I 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…

Slavery is a scourge on humanity. But it was a scourge on humanity for 99.999% of our existence. I’d sure like to think it wasn’t our natural state, but it sure feels like if society broke down, that’s what we’d default to.

[deleted]

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#100

Post by in3d »

bmitc wrote: post #42
mperham wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.

Really? Because the fact that this article was published seems to showcase evidence for a systemic problem. How did this article get approved? I mean, it's linking to a study that makes racial and sexist judgements based off of ... general relativity? Edit: I've read the full article and it is borderline incoherent. I have no idea what in the world she is talking about or how it even remotely relates to E.O. Wilson,…

Not only was it simply published as an op-ed but Scientific American's editor-in-chief publicly praised this piece on Twitter, calling it insightful, and retweeted the author and another tweet praising it. So unfortunately we can expect Sci Am to continue on this downward trajectory.
Post reply on HN