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

151–160 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#151

Post by WalterBright »

john_moscow wrote: post #132
WalterBright wrote: post #62

Earlier 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!"

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 t…

If Kermit The Frog said it on an episode of Sesame Street, it would be reasonable. Maybe follow it up with "P is for Planet".

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#152

Post by andrew_ »

mmaunder wrote: post #133
andrew_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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???

Signal, mostly, personally

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#153

Post by maxlybbert »

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…

Every discussion about race seems to include a statement that “race” isn’t a scientific term and has no well-defined meaning. Race seems to be one group saying “those other people are different from us, and we don’t mingle with them.” I don’t consider it surprising for genetics researchers to compare distinct populations that have a long history of staying separate. I certainly don’t believe it’s evidence that the researchers think it’s right for the groups to stay separate; I assume they’re simply interested in the outcome of staying separate.

I’m not even sure that the researchers assume any differences are caused by genetics. I think that’s an important part of the research: what differences exist? what are the causes? can we show some are genetic? can we show some definitely aren’t genetic? what are the outcomes?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#154

Post by slavik81 »

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…

The Economist obituaries are often of unexpected people. That's part of the charm. You never know who you'll find on the last page.

One of my favourites was about the guy who played The Creature from The Black Lagoon. I wouldn't read too much into their choice.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#155

Post by akvadrako »

boppo1 wrote: post #135
RachelF wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably that his research shows there are more effective ways to spend resources than reducing CO2.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#156

Post by VictorPath »

In the old days priests would say the gods put rulers in their place over everyone. Nowadays we have Wilson saying the same thing, except science and genetics have replaced talk of the gods. It's very simple and the basis of all ideology - the rulers are right to rule for whatever reason.

It is not a new criticism of Wilson, people in the 1970s saw it for what it was.

Funny to see mention of Lysenko. Lysenko mainly talked about plant germination. Wilson talked about human brains and how one race is superior to another. It seems Lysenko was more modest than Wilson. It's odd to bring Lysenko up as Wilson is completely ideological and politicized - you'd think they would leave out mention of Lysenko. Of course if you right a political book about one race's superiority to another's and want to pass it off as science, first strategy is to accuse anyone who questions any aspect of it of being ideological.

I'm glad old bastards like Wilson, who would prefer to go back to his youth of segregated buses and drinking fountains, are dropping dead. Of course the day will come that this wack job on Medium foaming at the mouth about inferior blacks and communists will one day kick off too.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#157

Post by lazyeye »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #123
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…

Woke culture had a purpose but it has become a victim of its own success. The author of the SA article clearly wants to carve out science as biased by the mere fact of asserting that all genes are not equal. They seem to think we are all perfectly one as capable as the other in all things. That is insanity. It leads to a spiral of blame and anxiety as we see ourselves as nothing but victims of the world at large and…

Woke people only ever want a blank slate to which they can apply their ideology. They wont tolerate nature intruding.

Why is there no neuro-psychology component in gender studies for example?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#158

Post by MetricExpansion »

dehrmann wrote: post #97
AareyBaba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pithy, but I’d actually argue the opposite. As someone who consumes quite a bit of science content on YouTube, it’s actually quite jarring to go back to traditional TV science shows. It feels a lot less information dense and more time-wasting.

An interesting example is when Veritasium, who normally does the usual YouTube science content, got some big budget funding for one video [1] and produced it in a style more like what you’d see on TV. It was striking how there was so much filler and dramatization to try to make it interesting, and the whole thing felt dumbed down compared to his usual content, for example [2], which is deeper and relatively information-dense.

And there are channels like PBS Spacetime which go far, far beyond anything I’ve ever seen in any media aimed at a general audience [3].

[1] https://youtu.be/YMDJA4UvXLA

[2] https://youtu.be/OxGsU8oIWjY

[3] https://youtu.be/gSKzgpt4HBU

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#159

Post by colordrops »

zo1 wrote: post #60
colordrops wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the fact that an individual's disposition and choice isn't entirely a creation of their own. Otherwise you'd see a random distribution of dispositions, rather than very different dispositions based on cultural context. The rest of your statements are vague and hand-wavy, and I'm not sure how to respond.

Not OP. Of course the two systems interact and feed eachother. The parent said the same thing, adding that linking the two too much causes a feedback loop only because we let it. I.e. letting the "victim to the system" become part of the culture, ingraining it and adding even more effect of the system over individual action. We are forever intertwined with our environment. The only way to untangle it is to pick one g…

It is totally fine that an individual choose personal responsibility. The issue here is when individual choices of others are blamed as the sole cause of the problem.

> The only way to untangle it is to pick one guiding principle.

This is an arbitrary statement with no reasoning. It is both possible to expect individual responsibility and also to hold the system accountable.

The system and individual behaviors are intertwined. That's the nature of human reality. They are a feedback loop that affect and create each other. One does not exist without the other. It's like voting - you can vote all you want, but some changes will never happen without modifying the system, e.g. the first-past-the-post voting in the US killing any chance of 3rd party participation. You have to change the system to ranked-choice. There's no way around it.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#160

Post by zmix »

dtgriscom wrote: post #108

In the 70s I was an avid SciAm reader. I loved the monthly "Amateur Scientist" column, "conducted" by C. L. Stong. Lots of detailed technical info about how to make a seismometer, a nitrogen laser, an electron microscope, antibubbles, etc. etc. etc. I have the Amateur Scientist 3.0 CD-ROM, including columns from 1928 to 2001, and I just pulled out an October 1974 column, "Electrostatic Motors Are Powered By Electric…

> Amateur Scientist 3.0 CD-ROM, including columns from 1928 to 2001

I know a lot of DataHoarders, who would love to get a hand on this ;-)

Post reply on HN