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

111–120 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#111

Post by frebdo »

garyrob wrote: post #66

Something 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…

This isn't even about the audience, it's about the writers' careers in media. Have to toe the line or you'll be unhireable.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#112

Post by freddie_mercury »

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.

I don't think it's anything unique to the "TikTok era". It has always been like that, as long as I can remember. Decades ago was the same.

My guess is that the primary challenges are

a) finding a subject that happens to exactly fit the 60-minute time slot without requiring grievous cuts or padding. I imagine it is hard to know this in advance. I notice, for instance, the bigger, famous theatrical documentaries don't exactly have a uniform run-length.

b) production costs. Sure, you could fly around the world to interview another 4 experts and get another 3-hours of footage (that you cut down to 15-minutes) and have a graphics artist who charges $1,000/day generate more models ... or you could just recycle and pad with cheap filler to reach your run-time. After all, you were only given a budget of $X,000 to make a 60-minute documentary.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#113

Post by ars »

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.

No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad.

I can even pinpoint when they passed the road of no return - it's when they mixed politics with science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-... and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ... here.

That was when I realized they didn't care about actual science, they cared about appearance.

The old scientific american would have never written an article intended to make people act a certain way by changing the name of things.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#115

Post by andrew_ »

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…

I see small, walled groups with vibrant and varied discussion re-emerging. I hear about new small groups/chats constantly; I'm a party to several. Discussion within is without fear of consequence, ideas are discussed objectively and in earnest. Disagreements are expected and welcome. Sometimes tempers flare but mutual respect is not lost and empathy is high. The soup of the day is candor, and it's delicious.

It's a matter of time until the bullseye fear is replaced with anger and gives way to courage, and until the mob annoys enough people as to lose any persuasion or power it currently holds. It'll take time, but history shows that change is inevitable.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#116

Post by merpnderp »

justicezyx wrote: post #104
merpnderp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Was ranting, not good for this forum. Apologize for people who read it.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but keep in mind that most slaves in human history looked exactly like those enslaving them.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#117

Post by andrew_ »

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…

The invention of the printing press opened the floodgates to both open, free discussion and wild censorship. This is a good read if you're into that kind of random info: https://brewminate.com/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press-i...

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#118

Post by bawolff »

dehrmann wrote: post #102
bawolff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be silly, but its not downright misrepresenting concepts the way this article is complaining about, e.g. > “First, the so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against."

I came here to call out that quote. Apparently this is the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_McLemore Only half of the story is Scientific American going downhill. The other half is that social activism creeping into science. A professor and researcher, regardless of if they're a social activist, shouldn't disparage statistics like that. It's also troubling that she either 1) understands statistics that po…

I believe social activism should be entertwined with science - we should use science to make the world a more just and fair place, and we should look to human misery as inspiration for things we can study and improve.

However, twisting scientific terms by using double meanings of terms that have differing colloquial meanings like the scientific american does, doesn't accomplish that and helps nobody.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#119

Post by chmod775 »

> “Why are string theorists calling for an end to empiricism rather than an end to racial hegemony? I believe the answer is that knowledge production in physics is contingent on the ascribed identities of the physicists.”

This one and most of the other quotes sound like they were written by some AI.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#120

Post by adolph »

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…

> 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.

> So in trying to sound cool, the user ends up sounding racist or sexist, again, depending on context.

Post reply on HN