3 ms·
Scientific American hasn’t been a science magazine for years. At best it’s a “science communication” magazine, at worst it’s a mix of incompetence and agendas,
by gotocake 8y ago
Scientific American hasn’t been a science magazine for years. At best it’s a “science communication” magazine, at worst it’s a mix of incompetence and agendas, even if they are often agendas I agree with. It’s not worth the read anymore, and far better alternatives exist.
- Koshkin 8y ago> far better alternatives Are you referring to New Scientist?
- gotocake 8y agoI was thinking of American Scientist and Physics World. I’m not really familiar with New Scientist, sorry!
- scottlocklin 8y agoNew Scientist is pretty bad; sort of the weekly world news of science. I completely agree with you about SciAm. I like quantamagazine myself. Though most science journalism is very, very bad these days. I'm guessing because not much is going on in the sciences; most of the research is pretty bad as well.
- gotocake 8y agoMan I wish that I could disagree with you, but... yeah. At least the long overdue “come to Jesus” moment is slowly arriving for theoreticians. Maybe we’ll see another golden age of experimentalism, that would be nice! Slow and solid is after all, better than quick and inconsequential.
- scottlocklin 8y agoMy depressing theory is that "actual science" aka the good stuff that moves the needle, can only be done by some small and fixed number of people, and they're being drowned out by not-so-good people who are just running a career algorithm. Aka, if someone bombed the Solvay conference humanity would have been set back by 50 years, but if someone nuked an APS meeting, humanity might not even notice, or worse, immediately start doing better at physics.