Scientific American apologizes for not being balanced. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-07-2005, 08:46 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Scientific American apologizes for not being balanced.

By MATT COLLINS
Republished from Scientific American

Okay, We Give Up

There’s no easy way to admit this. 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.

In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can’t work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars and imperil national security, you won’t hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration’s antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that’s not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools’ Day.

Okay, We Give Up

MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 12:12 PM   #2
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 09:00 AM
sophomoric
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 12:21 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 04:00 AM
well, it was an april fools joke.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 01:35 PM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
sophomoric

like people who ignore science?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 07:36 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:00 PM
There is some really good science over link
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 08:35 PM   #6
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 09:00 AM
This WAS a joke. Thank God. It was actually reproduced from an "Onion" article publihsed a few days earlier.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 09:47 PM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



like people who ignore science?
No that would be more elementary school.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-08-2005, 06:34 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No that would be more elementary school.

it is a childish mentality, isn't it?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2005, 05:58 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:00 PM
No it isn't in my experrience children are more inquisitive and more interested in science than any creationist or ID proponent.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 06:25 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No it isn't in my experrience children are more inquisitive and more interested in science than any creationist or ID proponent.

True.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 07:06 AM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No it isn't in my experrience children are more inquisitive and more interested in science than any creationist or ID proponent.

touche.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 11:41 AM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado, mostly.
Posts: 48
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Published on April 1st or not, this is no joke. Journalists are constantly under pressure to be balanced, and often that means opening the floor to all manner of crap.

I think it's a great way to stick it to people who write angry letters about the evils of evolution.
__________________

__________________
Mongpoovian is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com