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

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#131

Post by kossTKR »

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 remember this being an annoyance for a long time.

BBC horizon documentaries pretty much took the prize when it came to endless stock video with ambient music and aimless "poetic" quotes from various eccentric scientists talking about some interesting but essentially fantastical topic far removed from any reality or future.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#132

Post by john_moscow »

WalterBright wrote: post #62
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…

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!"

I beg a pardon, but what's wrong with this one? Sure, if you understand enough of the general relativity theory, you kinda get that "X was earlier than Y" starts making less and less sense if X and Y are light years apart, but it's not something you can easily explain to the general audience.

The quoted phrase, on the other hand, understandably conveys the idea that planets are not specific to the solar system, and that other systems have formed and died billions of years before.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#133

Post by mmaunder »

andrew_ wrote: post #115
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 m…

Where? For the love of rational thinking, where???

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#134

Post by twofornone »

weeblewobble wrote: post #129

The opinion piece in question ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... ) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the…

>presuming differences between races were due to genetics

Its not a farfetched presumption that natural selection continued after the emergence of the homo sapien species. What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped above the shoulders while geographically distinct human groups spent thousands of generations adapting physically, culturally, and likely cognitively to drastically different environments.

>OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech

These accusations of racism are the moral panic. This is pushback.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#135

Post by boppo1 »

RachelF wrote: post #127
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…

Scientific American has been in decline since their 2003 hit pieces against environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg. All ad-hominem attacks, no science or logic. Sadly this has infected other publications: Last week The Economist did not do an official obituary of E.O. Wilson, they did a drag queen instead. Wilson was relegated to a four paragraph notice in the science section. Wilson was badly attacked by Marxists in the 197…

What were their gripes with Lomberg?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#136

Post by twofornone »

Its not unlike the travesty that has befallen our once informative channels: natgeo, discovery, animal planet...though perhaps not quite as extreme. And the National Geographic magazine has been obsessing over woke politics for a decade now as well. Its a damn shame to lose these institutions to such blatant politicking.

Across society we seem to be regressing to the lowest common denominator. Entertainment, education, consumer goods, advertisement...this can't be sustainable.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#137

Post by boppo1 »

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?

An ipad with archive access to the old scientific americans. I have one from the 1890s I got in an antique store and it's great.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#138

Post by jimkleiber »

andrew_ wrote: post #117
jimkleiber wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> if you're into that kind of random info

Almost always, yes. But by a German professor in Journalism and Communications on historical censorship on a website that has "brew" in the domain? Certainly.

Thank you!

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#139

Post by jimkleiber »

mmaunder wrote: post #95
jimkleiber wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I agree. The ability to broadcast (and respond to broadcasts) to the world from almost anywhere in the world at any time, and have it recorded in text, audio, video, or more for an indefinite amount of time, so that people can receive it almost at any time from any place, I'd say has no close parallels in human history. The lack of gatekeepers I think is one of the biggest deals. Maybe the printing press gave the lack of gatekeeper, and maybe some forms of radio had that as well, but normally to broadcast to large audiences, there have been gatekeepers. Now, that being said, some platforms are starting to gatekeep at a very high level (e.g. Youtube, Twitter, FB), and many communication forums have lower level moderation (reddit, group chats, email lists, etc), yet, still, huge changes. I try to not say "we're living in an unprecedented time" because I think people use it way too often and it often has more to do with their inability to see similarities across time. And yet, as you've mentioned, we've never had communication like this as a species.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#140

Post by sofixa »

RachelF wrote: post #127
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…

Scientific American has been in decline since their 2003 hit pieces against environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg. All ad-hominem attacks, no science or logic. Sadly this has infected other publications: Last week The Economist did not do an official obituary of E.O. Wilson, they did a drag queen instead. Wilson was relegated to a four paragraph notice in the science section. Wilson was badly attacked by Marxists in the 197…

I think there's a significant difference between a hit piece with personal attacks and not dedicating "enough" ( for you) material to a person.
Post reply on HN