Scientific American Gives Up

Hey, Tina was cool!

Sorta.

Sometimes.

Hubby-as-prof gets a good rate, so we let my subscription expire and he got one (schniff -- been my name on there for what 15 years?), and for a brief shining moment (2-3 weeks) we got TWO, the end of my subscription and the beginning of his, so we didn't have to have tug-o-war fights and hiding and such over who would read it. (For a while we were hiding them in ever-more elaborate places, to be snatched out just before bedtime and hidden under pajamas. The rules were that whomever hit the pillow holding it got to read it that night.)

As in... I need it to live, too.

And the New York Times.*

But especially the New Yorker.

*I read the Science Times cover to cover every Tuesday and that's a pretty good source of current science, itself.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Dlowan, Osso and everyone else, I would recommend for good reading the FREEBIE, www.aldaily.com put out by The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Oh - that one is great - I have it on my bookmarks - thing is, there is so little damned TIME for all this - I had forgotten about it.

0 Replies

So now we get double new yorkers, as my late applying coincided with a lowpriced subscription since we are a business... and so they now overlap. Too bad I can't forward the business thing to Me, or can I. Only thirty years, what do they care, snarl, slaver.

I really liked Robert Gottlieb, who I gather was a temporary pacer in place before Tina.

Heh. Maybe one of the Real Science types will give us a clue for who to pay attention to.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Dlowan, Osso and everyone else, I would recommend for good reading the FREEBIE, www.aldaily.com put out by The Chronicle of Higher Education.

I agree JL........this is a good, dependable publication. But I think Osso's suggestion is a good one. I'll check out the cost, but a subscription would show support. And I agree with both DLowan and HofT that something needs to be done. The attack on science is mind boggling to me. And I'm worried about the outcome if good people don't try to do something soon.

0 Replies

ossobuco--

When I do a renewal at a super-cheap rate--and I'm a housewife who is always being offered "professional discounts" to subscribe--I send a current mailing label with my check and subscription form.

I also keep a note of just when subscriptions are going to run out. I see no need to be more than three years ahead in saving money.

0 Replies

I remember as a child seeing my fathers Sci-Am lying right next to the New Yorker on the dining room table. He taugh me well

0 Replies

...
I'm in, although... Scientific America probably doesn't have a wide base of Creationist subscribers that they are risking with this editorial. In fact, they are rather like the preacher to the choir. I imagine the magazine can be found in some educational institutions, and it might get the axe there for this statement. However, if the growing theocracy can get to them through those schools, it was only a matter of time until it did so.

Still, I respect them for overtly addressing what amounts to an attack on science withing the USA.

0 Replies

Tina Brown...shook up the magazine. But I am unhappy about the cartoons now. they're just not as good.

0 Replies

Lola, when I was working, I read our department's copy of The Chronical of Higher Education. Here I am recommending that you read the website, www.aldaily.com. .It's a wonderful smorgasborg of articles, and FREE.

0 Replies

Re: ...

Waldo_ wrote:

I'm in, although... Scientific America probably doesn't have a wide base of Creationist subscribers that they are risking with this editorial. In fact, they are rather like the preacher to the choir. I imagine the magazine can be found in some educational institutions, and it might get the axe there for this statement. However, if the growing theocracy can get to them through those schools, it was only a matter of time until it did so.

Still, I respect them for overtly addressing what amounts to an attack on science withing the USA.

True but a beautiful example of Socratic irony.

0 Replies

This is an interesting thread. I see no one willing to point out the obvious flaw. The theory of evolution is a THEORY. Tell me again: You show me examples of micro evolution so I must believe in MACRO? And, because I can't see God's finger designing and creating I must believe all this happened by chance? What a relief! Now I no longer have any obligation to inquire of God. My conscience feels better already.

Science has done much to describe, explain, measure and predict the universe in which we exist; but in the end we are forced to define our terms relative to the entities of space and time. Is it possible that a creator has fabricated space and time so that what we experience as reality might come to be? I find it interesting that the Hebrew name for God is translated He who causes to become.

We may not be as smart as we think.

BTW, I read SA. 2 Cents

0 Replies

welcome to a2k and thanks for an interesting post.

Neat avatar

0 Replies

neologist said

Quote:

We may not be as smart as we think.

This sentiment should also be considered by adherents of the ID HYPOTHESIS.

As for macro vs microevolution, that too seems to be a HYPOTHESIS that is used to separate the process into what has been observed (in our limited time frame) from what evidence of the process in a geological time frame.

Moreover, the concept of evolution being random indicates a lack of understanding of this process. Evolution according to Darwin is a two step process with only the first step even being close to random. The second step is selection of the fittest. And that step is a condition of the niche/environment.

BTW my personal faith considers that evolution is the process used by an intelligent designer. But then my faith doesn't include the hypothesis of arrogance. An hypothesis of arrogance inherent in ID proponents that Earth in general and humanity in particular are the ultimate product of an intelligent designer.

So the "we may not be as smart as we think" warning should also be considered by contemporary ID hypothesisers.

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

BTW my personal faith considers that evolution is the process used by an intelligent designer. But then my faith doesn't include the hypothesis of arrogance. An hypothesis of arrogance inherent in ID proponents that Earth in general and humanity in particular are the ultimate product of an intelligent designer.
Rap

If evolution is the process used by an intelligent designer, can the designer intervene in the process? Or is he bound by the process he set in motion?

I don't consider myself an ID proponent or a creationist. I do not believe humanity to be God's ultimate creation. I prefer the word unique.

The real arrogance, (and I don't see it in you, Rap) is the assertion that we can ignore the creator and set our own standards.

0 Replies

whichever way clear evidence supports neo. Right now its most easily inferred that the rise of life has been an event that is rather dependent upon the various environments posed.
Now unless that creator likes to interefere with the progress of life that remains at the times following each mass extinction, then life obviously "finds its own way"

0 Replies

Intervention would be modifications of the niche.

Survival in the environment is the winnowing process for random mutation. In addition, intervention in the form of environmental modification is an observed phenomenon, whether that environmental intervention was the result of actions by a deity however, still remains hypothetical.

Nevertheless, just as a barrier should remain between church and state a barrier must remain between science and faith.

BTW My opinion of the history of this planet, human beings are presently a footnote.

Rap

0 Replies

I'm obviously not changing anyone's thinking. However, I am learning a lot about how folks think. Just a few observations (OK, opinions) about barriers:

The barrier between church and state can never be firmly established so long as people worship the state.

In a perfect world, science and religion should agree.

0 Replies

0 Replies

neo writes:

Quote:

This is an interesting thread. I see no one willing to point out the obvious flaw. The theory of evolution is a THEORY. Tell me again: You show me examples of micro evolution so I must believe in MACRO? And, because I can't see God's finger designing and creating I must believe all this happened by chance? What a relief! Now I no longer have any obligation to inquire of God. My conscience feels better already.

Science has done much to describe, explain, measure and predict the universe in which we exist; but in the end we are forced to define our terms relative to the entities of space and time. Is it possible that a creator has fabricated space and time so that what we experience as reality might come to be? I find it interesting that the Hebrew name for God is translated He who causes to become.

We may not be as smart as we think.

The obvious flaw is in your thinking that because we can't be sure of our own senses then we can't be sure of anything.

Science only attempts to do one thing. Explain the universe as we observe it in ways that are easy to duplicate and follow rules of logic.

The fact that we don't know for certain how it got here or if our senses are even correct are philosophical questions that ignore science itself. Is it possible that our world is a fraud perpetrated by a supreme being? Perhaps. But that isn't what science deals with. It only deals with the rules of the world in which we live in or "think" we live in.

As for Evolution being a theory, yes it is. But gravity and how it works is also a theory. A "theory" in science is not what you make it out to be in your statement. A "theory" is the best explanation for all observed facts. If I follow your logic about macro evolution being visible before I am to believe it then when I only see a bright disk in the sky why should I believe that the sun is really a large ball of gas creating light from a hydrogen reaction?

We may not be as smart as we think but if you ignore the rules of science then you have no basis to make any claims of intelligence since you have no standard by which to judge.

0 Replies

neo writes:

Quote:

I don't consider myself an ID proponent or a creationist. I do not believe humanity to be God's ultimate creation. I prefer the word unique.

The real arrogance, (and I don't see it in you, Rap) is the assertion that we can ignore the creator and set our own standards.

Perhaps the real arrogance is thinking that you in being human are somehow unique. We have no way at present of proving that humans are alone in the universe as intelligent creatures or of proving that others exist. It is an entirely all too human trait to think that we are better than others in some way but that doesn't make it true.

If we can't set any standards then how do you propose to judge your own statements?

0 Replies

Scientific American Gives Up

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know