Main > Everything Else
"Scientific American" decides to stop reporting Science, more creationism.
APFelon:
I wrote a tremendously long thread, but I snipped most of it. We are going way off topic, and frankly I couldn't give two turds in a clenched fist about your opinions on God or GWB-- certainly not enough to continue arguing over it. I wanted to talk about Scientific American. I am a former subscriber, so I feel I have vested interest in the future of the magazine. Up until recently my money went to support their publication.
However, I would like to address this:
--- Quote ---Aaaah, the old slippery-slope argument.
--- End quote ---
It wasn't a "slippery slope" argument. I put in some suggestions and some policies that I have seen advocated on the Internet and heard on Air America. If this were a slippery slope argument, I would have started at one point and stated what could or would happen.
There. I feel better now. Now on with the show.
I would be hard pressed to find the words to convince Chicken Little that the sky is not falling. Same goes for the global warming myth.
I guess the world loves an apocolypse, whether it be from a "righteous God" or car emissions... or gigantic rocks from space... or over population, or insecticides, or bioengineered food, or hyper contageous superdiseases that melt internal organs, or whatever.
I used to read SA monthy, and ALL of these apocolyptic theories (aside from the God smiting the wicked) have graced their pages at one time or another (along with slavery, poverty, and a bunch of leftist pet causes). If you actually read SA (or my original post on this topic) you would know this. And THAT, my friend, is my problem with SA.
You might not care if someone worships Papa Smurf, but I DO care when a once legitimate scientific journal embraces junk science in order to sell magazines, and I DO care when they get snarky when someone calls them on it. SA is over 150 years old, and their opinion on scientific matters is weighty on legacy alone.
What do you do when a trusted friend starts lying to you? I don't know about you, but I certainly would not call that person a friend anymore. When a magazine starts lying to me, or selects scientists and researchers to publish based on their scare factor, I would no longer call myself a subscriber.
You seem to be under the impression that SA is merely reacting to what you see as a increase in theocratic tendancies, but the problem is that the scare articles and the belittling of the religious came years before the 2000 elections. Maybe one issue out of the year didn't address climate change in one way or another. They decided all-of-a-sudden that modern human behaviour (sociology and psychology) is now hard science.
I had always thought that the business of science is to find out "what is" and "what isn't". They won't even give voice to any scientist that challenges their views (unless it is to berate or humiliate them). That isn't helpful scientific dialogue. That's agenda pushing.
If I get a religious tract in the mail, I know precisely what I am going to see if I upen the cover-- persuasive attempts to believe in God, embrace some religion or another, obey some screed and whatnot. But when I get a magazine that professes to report science, I don't expect to see yet another theory on global warming or some glib, smart-alecky op ed about religion.
Imagine if you have a child that recieves "Nickelodeon Magazine" in the mail. When he or she opens it, it endorses the philosophies of the Republican party, promotes religion, and endorses Republican candidates by name. Heck, put any non-political magazine in that place. Better Homes and Gardens. Car and Driver. Parents. Cat Fancy... Whatever.
You go on the Internet to see some yahoo say "it's about time! We need to fight back against those evil Democrats, and this is just backlash against the Dems promoting gay marriage! I hope this is just the beginning!" despite the fact that it is obvious that this person rarely if ever reads the publication in question. He or she just loved to see his or her personal agenda pushed by any means possible.
You seemed to lament the "great political divide" in this country, but let me tell you brother, you aren't part of the solution. Nor is this laughable Op ed or the bigoted anti-religious nutjobs who seem to have an underdog complex.
The problem, my friend, is that the "live and let live" attitudes of yesteryear are toast, and the new creed is "live and let live, as long as you keep your stinkin' life and beliefs out of my face. Oh, and obey the politically correct speech codes on your way out the door or suffer the consequences."
We have managed to rewrite the free exercise clause to mean that people are free to exercise religion in their homes or in their churches as we gleefully rip head scarfs off of Muslims and tear crucifixes off from public schoolteacher's necks... all the while claiming that it is in the name of "religious freedom"... or "freedom from religion", if you want to be more accurate.
Yay us. Stifling scientific thought and a war on religion, and we redefine it as "freedom".
We humans are so clever.
Schmokes- I was merely trying to link scientific theory to faith. I don't see much difference in the longs and short of it in some cases (dark matter, for one).
APf
Grasshopper:
Well I can't comment on the direction Scientific American is taking as I've only read the magazine a couple of times.
But I think it's very dangerous to dismiss theories on global warming as mere scaremongering. Yes, you can find plenty of respectable scientists who don't buy into the idea of man-made global warming. But they are definitely in the minority.
Global warming is a fact. The only question is, is it man made or just part of a natural cycle.
I think scientists have a duty to present the worst case scenario. Let's suppose that there is only a 1% chance that man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon. That is still a 1% chance that human civilisation is being put in jeopardy.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote ---We are going way off topic, and frankly I couldn't give two turds in a clenched fist about your opinions on God or GWB-- certainly not enough to continue arguing over it.
--- End quote ---
So I'm suppose to care about your diatribe regrarding anti-religious biases in scientific magazines? Thanks for showing your real face. It'll certainly help cut through all the crap you spew about being able to weight both sides and "come to your own conclusions."
--- Quote ---It wasn't a "slippery slope" argument. I put in some suggestions and some policies that I have seen advocated on the Internet and heard on Air America. If this were a slippery slope argument, I would have started at one point and stated what could or would happen.
--- End quote ---
You seem to be confusing punditry with attempts to legislate policy. People posting on the internet can't promise to amend the constitution. The President has. So, feel free to continue scowering the internet for fringy nutjobs that make you feel better about staying out of the fray for fear of actually having to choosing a side.
--- Quote ---You seemed to lament the "great political divide" in this country, but let me tell you brother, you aren't part of the solution. Nor is this laughable Op ed or the bigoted anti-religious nutjobs who seem to have an underdog complex.
--- End quote ---
Right. And your "sit-back-and-unsubscribe" attitude is? Don't belittle me because I'm opinionated and perfer to actually work for change as opposed to bitching about those who would.
Anti-religious? Again, who the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about representatives voted into office to carry on in the best interests of a secular nation. You seem to be talking about likes of Hal Turner and his bunch.
--- Quote ---The problem, my friend, is that the "live and let live" attitudes of yesteryear are toast, and the new creed is "live and let live, as long as you keep your stinkin' life and beliefs out of my face. Oh, and obey the politically correct speech codes on your way out the door or suffer the consequences."
--- End quote ---
Well; my buddy, pal, Dear Ole' Chap, I agree. But when one side threatens to amend the constitution in order to institutionalize their beliefs, how *exactly* do you fight it with, "Ok...yeah, I get ya' dude. Thas' cool." ?
--- Quote ---We have managed to rewrite the free exercise clause to mean that people are free to exercise religion in their homes or in their churches as we gleefully rip head scarfs off of Muslims and tear crucifixes off from public schoolteacher's necks... all the while claiming that it is in the name of "religious freedom"... or "freedom from religion", if you want to be more accurate.
--- End quote ---
Wait. Who said, "I couldn't give two turds in a clenched fist about your opinions on...?" Oh, that was *you*, sorry. Funny, I'd say you're no more part of the "solution" than you'd claim I remain.
Btw, your exaggerated claims bear no basis in reality, so I can't argue against them. Who the hell are you talking about? Can you point to specific instances of this "gleeful" behavior or are you making sh!t up, or what?
The head scarf thing has already been debunked in another thread, so I assume the rest of your knee-jerk reactionary BS is just that....B.S.
mrC
Grasshopper:
One other thing, I wonder whether Scientific American has ever done an article on Tsunamis.
I'm sure that six months ago many people would have dismissed scientific 'theories' about giant tidal waves as being mere scaremongering.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: APFelon on March 27, 2005, 11:27:36 am ---It wasn't a "slippery slope" argument.
--- End quote ---
AP....that was textbook slippery slope.
This is what you said:[quote}
I find this little gem to be more than a little disturbing. If this is just the beginning, can you explian the "end"? Complete purge of religion from the public sphere? A pledge of athiesm from our leaders? Howabout a Stalinist style purge of those who profess a belief in God? How are any of these not the acts of a bigot or a zealot who marches under a secular banner?textbook slippery slope.
--- Quote ---
--- End quote ---
How can you even begin to argue otherwise?