"Scientific American" decides to stop reporting Science, more creationism.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

from their editorial
Okay, We Give Up


mrC

[Bones]

Why not just change the name to Nexus? 

[menace]

Nice editorial--wonder how many heads it went over?

[APFelon]

Probably not many. Subtle satire it is not.

I used to read SA quite often, and I still pick one up every once in a while. The problem isn't that they dismiss religious-based theories, it is that they take so much time dismissing them (this op ed is one more example).

 They have also broadened their definition of "science" to include topics such as sociology (poverty, slavery) which many see as non-science related and agenda driven.

Let's hope they'll broaden it again to include "the sweet science"-- boxing! It couldn't possibly hurt their credibility.

They also seem to have a "theory of the week" when it comes to the destruction of humanity through catastrophic climate change or collisions with asteroids. But hey, let's face it, scaring people by telling them that an enormous amount of methane will be released from the ocean floor if the climate keeps warming (which of course is caused by humans), poisoning the atmosphere and killing us all does sell magazines.

They puctuate these types of theories with threats of giant rocks from space. Hypochondriacs aren't as obsessive.

I'm sure that they will get a chuckle out of their core readership with this "tongue-deeply-in-cheek" op-ed, it won't improve their hostile reputation or dissuade anyone from believing that SA hates religion and the religious.

Which is a shame. It was once a very fine magazine when it actually stuck with science and they kept their bigotry to themselves and their tinfoil hats off of their craniums.

APf

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Which is a shame. It was once a very fine magazine when it actually stuck with science and they kept their bigotry to themselves and their tinfoil hats off of their craniums.

The scientific community has been under attack by the Bush Administration and it fundamental Christian subset since he first took office. Would you that SA should just roll over and watch these relentless attacks and smile?

We've got IMAX theaters in the south refusing to show films that incorporate evolution. We've got funding for the sciences at an all-time low. We've got an administration that doesn't believe in global warming. We've got a "faith-based" community that actively, and gleefully demonstrates a complete disdain for the immutable laws of science.

THAT, you should be ashamed of. Not SA. They need to do more to defend their field against the fallacies of the righteous. It's not bigotry...it's common sense and I hope this is only the beginning.


mrC

[JB]

Which is a shame. It was once a very fine magazine when it actually stuck with science and they kept their bigotry to themselves and their tinfoil hats off of their craniums.

The scientific community has been under attack by the Bush Administration and it fundamental Christian subset since he first took office. Would you that SA should just roll over and watch these relentless attacks and smile?

It's been going on a lot longer than that.

[APFelon]

Let me simply put this forward for you so we can achieve some sort of rhetorical stasis: I am not a religious man. So I am not so sure what I should "be ashamed of", unless you let your own biases assume that I am religious. (It's odd that people don't assume I am black when I stand up for black people... Wonder why that is?)

Let's apply that to science, which is an "observe-theorize" endeavor. For example:

Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.

Mr. C concludes that I am religious.

The fact is that I am not religious.

Mr. C's theory is wrong, despite his observations.

You had FAITH, though, that you were right and that I was indeed religious. So much for your personal science.

For the record, I don't believe in manmade global warming, either, just as I didn't believe in the "global cooling" fad in the late 1970's. I think that those beliefs takes just as much "faith" as believing in God.

And don't bother citing Internet sources, blah, blah, blah. I have read the points from both camps and I have made my decision based on a rational and logical approach and I find that the "end of the worlders" come up short or are simply pushing a political agenda. For every "global warming" article you post, I could counter with an article from a scientist who says it's all bunk, and I will become bored with it quickly.

And don't bother saying that all scientists believe that the Earth is warming due to manmade emissions. It isn't true. And consensus never, ever changes fact anyway. "Science" once led us to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat and you create life (rats and maggots) by placing rotten meat under burlap swatch. All "science" by consensus at one point. All garbage.

It's not bigotry...it's common sense and I hope this is only the beginning.

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?

The scientific community has been under attack by the Bush Administration and it fundamental Christian subset since he first took office. Would you that SA should just roll over and watch these relentless attacks and smile?

Oh, please do tell. How has the Bush administration attacked science? How has the Bush administration attacked SA? (I am going to assume that you will mention stem cell research or vouchers, or is there something far more sinister forwarded by MoveOn this week?)

Why is it that everything you write on this particular forum somehow has GWB attached to it? It's like playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" except with Bush in the middle instead of the Footloose star.

 I find the "blame Clinton" crowd contemptable, and my opinion of the "blame Bush" crowd differs very little. It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away. To attach Bush (or Clinton, or Rove) to every happening everywhere (even silly stuff like people writing angry letters to the editor of SA) is, in my opinion, much more frightening that those who believe in a "sky God" and are by far more of a threat. The absolutely violent reactions I have seen against people of faith is revolting on every level.

But hey, it's trendy, it's common, and all the cool people are doing it. And as an added bonus, it's poisonous rhetoric that is seen to come from the DNC that will get more votes for "my guy" in 2008.

Say, Hillary looks to be the front runner in the 2008 presidential elections. The problem is that she seems to have found God of late (Never mind, don't worry, it is probably a ruse so she can trick them Bible-thumpin' hillbillys in them red states).

APf

[DrewKaree]

It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away.

So you're trying to convince me that they're not?  I'll need more than just hearsay like that.

Are you considered a hillbilly if you are from a blue state?

I can't believe some of the stuff you post.  Clinton started us down this path, and you're just picking up where he left off. 

Sheesh.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I find the "blame Clinton" crowd contemptable, and my opinion of the "blame Bush" crowd differs very little. It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away. To attach Bush (or Clinton, or Rove) to every happening everywhere (even silly stuff like people writing angry letters to the editor of SA) is, in my opinion, much more frightening that those who believe in a "sky God" and are by far more of a threat. The absolutely violent reactions I have seen against people of faith is revolting on every level.

I see no solutions in your pragmatic approach, unless you're working on becoming a doormat. No one claims Bush is responsible for everything bad, or everything good. He and his administration, are however, responsible for a lot of goings on in this country. When those "goings-on" are bad, then accountability is in order. Same for praise. However, I see nothing of late to praise him for. Not Iraq..Iraq is still in the oven, we'll see how it turns out when it's done. Not our economy. Not the War on Terror. Not the Schiavo debacle. Not the fusion of Church and State. Not the attempted dismantling of Social Security. Not the tax breaks for the wealthy.

If you can't see how fractured this country is, how galvanized the world is against it, how horrible the security situation is, and how those problems relate directly to decisions Bush and his cronies have made and those they refuse to make, then you've obviously got your head lodged so firmly up where the sun don't shine, I'm surprised you could even find the keyboard to type.

Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.

Mr. C concludes that I am religious.

Never assumed you were religious. My reference re: shame, was that you; I, we, should *all* be ashamed that our elected political leaders have basically called for an all-out assault on the "reality-based" community, and consistently attempt to counter fact-based, empirical evidence with "faith-based" rhetoric and junk-science. And they get a free-pass from the media and the public while doing it.

You proposed that it's shameful that an editor (not just a person who wrote to the editor) of a scientific magazine decides to defend his magazine's position against an ideological base that has become increasingly hostile to the idea of scientific theory, specifically evolution in this case. I defended SA's right to call that into question. Plus, I thought the writing was witty and enjoyable.

For every "global warming" article you post, I could counter with an article from a scientist who says it's all bunk, and I will become bored with it quickly.

Yeah, 'cuz you've got it all figured out. My mistake.

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?

Aaaah, the old slippery-slope argument. Damn, I *never* get tired of that one. If you can't see the difference between the desire for a definitive, continued, seperation of church/state and the call for the absolute abolishment of religion, then there is really no point in trying to discuss this with you.

My views on religion have been posted here before. I really don't care if you want to paint yourself blue and worship Papa Smurf, just don't try to legislate that we all should. Or that a ten ton monument to Papa Smurf should remain in a public courthouse, etc.

Why is it that everything you write on this particular forum somehow has GWB attached to it?

Why not? Does it hurt your feelings?

mrC

[shmokes]

Let's apply that to science, which is an "observe-theorize" endeavor. For example:

Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.

Mr. C concludes that I am religious.

The fact is that I am not religious.

Mr. C's theory is wrong, despite his observations.

You had FAITH, though, that you were right and that I was indeed religious. So much for your personal science.

That's not what faith is, anyway.  That would simply be Mr.C coming to an inductive conclusion that turned out to be wrong.  Faith involves a great deal more than simply assigning a probability of >50% to something. 

And anyway, the conclusion that you are religious is not that unreasonable.  There's also context, aside from what you specifically said.  If someone on here were arguing that the rights of white people need to be protected from blacks, I would be surprised to find out that the person arguing was himself black.  It's similar with religion.  Something like 90% of Americans are religious (another thing that could legitimately affect his assumption).  God people simply weild a great deal more social power than us atheists because of their numbers. 

And even if it was faith, your little scenario would merely have confirmed Mr.C's belief that faith isn't something to be relied upon 

[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:
 

Aaaah, the old slippery-slope argument.

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]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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." ?

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.

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]

It wasn't a "slippery slope" argument.

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.

How can you even begin to argue otherwise?