Sure, they have to make money. And sure, there are publications out there that have absolutely horrid science writers (primarily the news agencies) simply because the people they hire for those positions were unable to land any other position.
HOWEVER... there are plenty of publications that make an honest effort at accurate reporting, and they do so very well.
...John...
Dead Earth
-
t00fri
- Developer
- Posts: 8772
- Joined: 29.03.2002
- Age: 22
- With us: 22 years 5 months
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Dollan wrote:Sure, they have to make money. And sure, there are publications out there that have absolutely horrid science writers (primarily the news agencies) simply because the people they hire for those positions were unable to land any other position.
HOWEVER... there are plenty of publications that make an honest effort at accurate reporting, and they do so very well.
...John...
Tell me the names! Tell me who --according to YOUR opinion-- is doing a solid job in this field. I told you that I regularly have plenty of direct contacts with wrters from /leading/ (international) science magazins. I am definitely NOT talking about provincial brands
"Nature" is one of the very few that I would call acceptable. But it's not really popular science...
Bye Fridger
Again... Astronomy, Discover, Sky and Telescope.
Astronomy especially, at least as far as the non-telescopic articles are concerned, does a very good job (I don't know enough about telescopes to rate the other articles, but I'd presume they're adept at that as well). Granted, they do not go into the meat and potatoes on most subjects (as you say, they ARE after a profit -- and how could they not be? -- and the intricate details of planetary detection are not going to be a major seller), but they certainly are not inaccurate about their reporting.
Now it's my turn YOU tell ME what publications you think are not worth the time or effort to even pick up (and this isn't counting news agencies or TV shows; often times, I think we can agree, they're both crap as far as accuracy goes!).
...John...
Astronomy especially, at least as far as the non-telescopic articles are concerned, does a very good job (I don't know enough about telescopes to rate the other articles, but I'd presume they're adept at that as well). Granted, they do not go into the meat and potatoes on most subjects (as you say, they ARE after a profit -- and how could they not be? -- and the intricate details of planetary detection are not going to be a major seller), but they certainly are not inaccurate about their reporting.
Now it's my turn
YOU tell ME what publications you think are not worth the time or effort to even pick up (and this isn't counting news agencies or TV shows; often times, I think we can agree, they're both crap as far as accuracy goes!).
...John...
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe..."
--Carl Sagan
--Carl Sagan
Fridger:
I understand your concern and if we write this Activity at all, I will make sure I preface all of my discussion of the impact with such words as "theory", speculation, etc.
First, I have to see if someone wants to work on doing the graphics. We will need several high quality images of cretaceous Earth, both before and after the impact. The cloud layers will obviously be dramatically different, with massive dust clouds obscuring much of Earth, etc. It can be quite dramatic and will make a great Activity, but will take some graphics time to create.
Any takers????
Dollan:
Thanks for mentioning the Deccan traps eruption, which clearly was very large and did cause climate change. Interestingly, I read somewhere (don't remember where) that at least one Geology group has dated the traps as forming at least 100,000 years after the K-T impact, which (if true) would mean the dinosaurs were already dead long before. If we ever do get this Activity going, I'd love to research that point further.
I would also add Scientific American to the list of American magazines that do a very good job of reporting good science to a lay audience. In the past in fact, folks complained that the magazine was too difficult for a lay audience and was more on par with Nature. Articles were all peer reviewed and rife with obtuse language Subsequently, to boost circulation, the editors chose to require authors to use more lay language, simplify explanations, etc. However, I have not heard whether they removed the requirement for peer review.
I have found the magazine a very credible source in a lot of areas, with lots of quoted references.
Frank
I understand your concern and if we write this Activity at all, I will make sure I preface all of my discussion of the impact with such words as "theory", speculation, etc.
First, I have to see if someone wants to work on doing the graphics. We will need several high quality images of cretaceous Earth, both before and after the impact. The cloud layers will obviously be dramatically different, with massive dust clouds obscuring much of Earth, etc. It can be quite dramatic and will make a great Activity, but will take some graphics time to create.
Any takers????
Dollan:
Thanks for mentioning the Deccan traps eruption, which clearly was very large and did cause climate change. Interestingly, I read somewhere (don't remember where) that at least one Geology group has dated the traps as forming at least 100,000 years after the K-T impact, which (if true) would mean the dinosaurs were already dead long before. If we ever do get this Activity going, I'd love to research that point further.
I would also add Scientific American to the list of American magazines that do a very good job of reporting good science to a lay audience. In the past in fact, folks complained that the magazine was too difficult for a lay audience and was more on par with Nature. Articles were all peer reviewed and rife with obtuse language Subsequently, to boost circulation, the editors chose to require authors to use more lay language, simplify explanations, etc. However, I have not heard whether they removed the requirement for peer review.
I have found the magazine a very credible source in a lot of areas, with lots of quoted references.
Frank
Hi Frank!
I've seen age estimates ranging as far as 80 million years ago, and as recently as 40 million years ago, depending on the age and source of the data. I think, though, that most agree it was roughly centered on 60 to 66 million years ago. The duration of the eruption has estimates that vary just as greatly, ranging from a few hundred thousand years to several million. Research into this would be pretty interesting indeed!
It certainly is the top common-press publication, if one does not count "Nature". I hope that they haven't removed that requirement for the peer reviewed articles, though. But I am glad they made other articles more "accessible", I guess you could say.
...John...
fsgregs wrote:Dollan:
Thanks for mentioning the Deccan traps eruption, which clearly was very large and did cause climate change. Interestingly, I read somewhere (don't remember where) that at least one Geology group has dated the traps as forming at least 100,000 years after the K-T impact, which (if true) would mean the dinosaurs were already dead long before. If we ever do get this Activity going, I'd love to research that point further.
I've seen age estimates ranging as far as 80 million years ago, and as recently as 40 million years ago, depending on the age and source of the data. I think, though, that most agree it was roughly centered on 60 to 66 million years ago. The duration of the eruption has estimates that vary just as greatly, ranging from a few hundred thousand years to several million. Research into this would be pretty interesting indeed!
I would also add Scientific American to the list of American magazines that do a very good job of reporting good science to a lay audience. In the past in fact, folks complained that the magazine was too difficult for a lay audience and was more on par with Nature. Articles were all peer reviewed and rife with obtuse language Subsequently, to boost circulation, the editors chose to require authors to use more lay language, simplify explanations, etc. However, I have not heard whether they removed the requirement for peer review.
I have found the magazine a very credible source in a lot of areas, with lots of quoted references.
It certainly is the top common-press publication, if one does not count "Nature". I hope that they haven't removed that requirement for the peer reviewed articles, though. But I am glad they made other articles more "accessible", I guess you could say.
...John...
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe..."
--Carl Sagan
--Carl Sagan
-
t00fri
- Developer
- Posts: 8772
- Joined: 29.03.2002
- Age: 22
- With us: 22 years 5 months
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Dollan wrote:Again... Astronomy, Discover, Sky and Telescope.
...
Now it's my turn
...John...
Publishing an explicit "blacklist" of science magazin names may easily cause legal problems. So no way...Making statements about positive exceptions it always fine, of course.
In general, magazins specializing on astronomy are less controversial than allround science magazins and notably magazins covering conceptionally difficult topics like news in or implications of particle physics, general relatiivity, balck holes, worm holes etc.
Certainly Sky&Telescope is another very positive exception. I actually have a subscription to S&T since 20 years or so. Like in case of 'Nature' , I know many professional astronomers who read S&T regularly.
As to 'Scientific American' => no comments.
I do have a subscription of the German partner of Scientific American = "Spektrum der Wissenschaft" (articles are translated). So I can judge the level and reliability of the latter very well, at least as to the subjects that have overlap with my professional competence...
Altogether the least reliable are certainly science magazins on TV or even worse: Science sites on the WEB.
Bye Fridger
t00fri wrote:Publishing an explicit "blacklist" of science magazin names may easily cause legal problems. So no way...Making statements about positive exceptions it always fine, of course.
I've been down that road before. Make certain that it is clear you are stating your opinion, and there is NO legal problem, at least in the U.S.
In general, magazins specializing on astronomy are less controversial than allround science magazins and notably magazins covering conceptionally difficult topics like news in or implications of particle physics, general relatiivity, balck holes, worm holes etc.
The times that Astronomy has addressed these rather heady issues, they've done a wonderful job at making the basics clear. And believe me, nothing will give me a headache faster than trying to understand relativity!
Certainly Sky&Telescope is another very positive exception. I actually have a subscription to S&T since 20 years or so. Like in case of 'Nature' , I know many professional astronomers who read S&T regularly.
It has been one of my favorites for years as well. When we move out of the colelge setting and I can actually afford a proper telescope, I plan to make that particular publication one of my mainstays!
[quoteAs to 'Scientific American' => no comments. [/quote]
But why? You can certainly write your opinion on this without fearing reprisals, legal or otherwise, presuming it is not done in a libellious manner. And I hardly think that you would stoop to making false, detrimental statements about something. So give it up, why don't you like it?
Altogether the least reliable are certainly science magazins on TV or even worse: Science sites on the WEB.
Well, I certainly agree here, although there are exceptions (spaceref.com, space.com, Bill Arnett's Nine Planets web site, for example). As far as TV goes, I concentrate mainly on paleontology shows, and am absolutely horrified at some of the things that make it to the show. Even little things, like one recent show remarking that Plesosaurs had gastropods in their stomaches to aid in ballast...! The correct answer is, of course, gastroliths. I tll ya, it makes me wanna pull my hair out!
...John...
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe..."
--Carl Sagan
--Carl Sagan
-
John Van Vliet
- Posts: 2941
- Joined: 28.08.2002
- With us: 22 years