Posted by:
SL Cabbie
(
)
Date: October 26, 2016 01:10PM
The link worked for me, but this article was strictly a puff piece. Okay, I see I could register for more, but I'm not going to bother.
This one is better than the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News, but still tabloidish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist>Sold in retail outlets and on subscription, the magazine covers current developments, news, reviews and commentary on science and technology. It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. There is a readers' letters section which discusses recent articles, and discussions also take place on the website.
>Readers contribute observations on examples of pseudoscience to Feedback, and questions and answers on scientific and technical topics to Last Word; extracts from the latter have been compiled into several books.
From the Amazon blurb...
>New Scientist is the world s [sic] most read weekly science and technology magazine. New Scientist reports on the very latest science and technology news, putting discoveries and advances in the context of everyday life.
Most read? Right...
Edit: From the "Criticisms" section in Wiki...
>In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the law of conservation of momentum.
>"Darwin was wrong" cover
>In January 2009, New Scientist ran a cover with the title "Darwin was wrong". The actual story stated that specific details of Darwin's evolution theory had been shown incorrectly, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species, which should be represented as a web instead of a tree. Some evolutionary biologists who actively oppose the intelligent design movement thought the cover was both sensationalist and damaging to the scientific community. Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution Is True, called for a boycott of the magazine, which was supported by evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 01:38PM by SL Cabbie.