Is Scientific American Liberal?

Any?

*Any?*

Defend that assertion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I haven't read the article you are talking about but I agree with the spirit of your letter.

I've also found sciam to be a cut above the other science mags. As spuriousmonkey pointed out it's not a journal but I don't think anyone is claiming that. I think of the comparison like this: if we think of a true journal as a scientist then sciam is a talented amateur.

btw - is the article that bothered you available on-line yet? if so could you link it? I'd be interested to read it. thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm afraid that the article on tax progressiveness is still in "digital" (subscribers-only) mode.

The editorial on Bush's position on stem-cell research may be read here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The history of the ‘journal’ is quite interesting (look under the websites about us)…

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=history

But I doubt that this has much to do with the ‘liberal’ slant. (I don’t read it so won’t comment if that option is well founded) rather I believe that the articles sell, on a global market. ‘

i.e.

http://www.huttonmedialimited.com/scientific_american.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

These publishers are all after money.

Guess what. I just wrote a chapter for a stem cell book. And do you think I will get a copy for free? No, I just wrote for them for free a chapter. What do I get? I might get a discount.

wonderful.

 

hmmmm...isn’t it the editors of the book which are taking the money? not that you'd have better luck with them...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know, but it seems to me rather rude to not give an author a free copy.

I got one for another chapter in another book.

 

That is a testament to your apparent lack of negotiation skills.

Why would you write a chapter for their book if they weren't going to compensate you? Because you're a student? If so, then maybe that's a fair deal, especially if you get credited in the book. That could really help you post-doctorally I'd say.

Whiner.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You should have demanded a free book though man, what the hell are you thinking? Hehe.

 

They have the rights to say anything they want.

 

They have their biases.

Two of the most notable ones that could be considered to be left-leaning would be their lambasting of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist (including personal attacks on Lomborg himself) comprising a preponderance of an entire issue. In a subsequent issue Lomborg was afforded only two pages to defend himself.

The other bias would be their extravaganza entitled "Why missile defense won't work", in which a multitude of categorically unqualified quasi-experts ruminated about a technology they clearly had not even a modicum of understanding of. I was particularly miffed by that, as that happens to be my area of expertise (and the asshats in the articles got nearly everything dead wrong).

It's still good reading though, and I can't see myself canceling my subscription. Politics prevades science: Film at 11.

 

I think Scientific American remains pretty conservative. The tone of the articles has run counter to what many see as the "conservative" agenda but I think this is due to a corruption of the term. Being conservative used to mean being fiscally responsible. It used to mean cherishing and preserving resources through striving to ever greater efficiencies. Now, I believe that something quite radical and violent, something that is neither conservative nor respectful of science has gained a foothold within the bastions of the elite and powerful. Their propaganda campaigns have been ruthless and many have succumbed to the growing insanity.

No, I don't find the Scientific American magazine to be presenting a liberal view. I just think that so many are acquiring a very extreme view that even that which is quite conservative appears liberal to them.

 

Mr. Chips, good points about the perversion of conservatism.

I still call myself a conservative, because I still embody all of what classic, true conservatives should. Fiscal responsibility, social freedoms, state's rights, etc. Don't confuse the current Administration with conservatism - it is anything but.

I guess that's the difference between conservatives and neoconservatives, but I'm not sure.

 

I think you will find those who claim to be neoconservatives have a different definition than what I have learned, basically borrowing from a definition by Noam Chomsky, that neoconservatives feel a totally free market equates to sound policies. I kind of find that being an allusion to the idea that the law of the jungle works, that might makes right.

I think you could get into a debate about that specifically with some of those who are well immersed and part of those who control the greatest strengths as they like to think of themselves as beyond doing any wrong. If they can spend enough to cover up atrocities, to have the best lawyers and a bag of dirty tricks to avoid any kind of prosecution than that makes them innocent (in their eyes). I'm not saying that I believe that any one is guilty but many processes now tend to favor the fostered ignorance of the monetarily wealthy over the integrity of information or science. Thus a growing chasm between the powers that be and those who recognize that conservative and liberal are really both sides of the same coin called, science. Need I elucidate as to how "liberal" has also been corrupted from its utilitarian interpretation?