Scientific American Gives Up

[yesthattom]

“The April issue Scientific American opens with a Perspectives column titled Okay, We Give Up. It opens, ‘For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don’t mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there’s no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.’”

(Source: Slashdot, but I want to point out that C showed me in the real (paper) version of the magazine a few weeks ago.)

Comments

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

April Fools, I assume. But they really do a lousy job at politics, despite bing right about every issue. (At least they did up through a couple of years ago, when I finally gave up on them.)

Their problem is (was?) ignoring (rather than refuting) the arguments opposed to their positions. The try to take the authoritative tone their science articles truly deserve, and than apply that tone to what rea really amateurish polemics. If I knew politics and didn't know any science, I'd assume their science was for shit, too.