Scientific American
Posted: 2009-05-05 12:12pm
This magazine is available for purchases at most stores with magazine racks where I live.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=133992
Scientific American is reliable in its reporting. More so than a publication like New Scientist, and significantly more so than rags like Popular Science. It is, however, quite . . . how shall I say this . . . dry in its tone and tends to go into a level of detail that makes it somewhat inaccessible to some laypersons.Jeremy wrote:This magazine is available for purchases at most stores with magazine racks where I live.
Popular Science is considered a rag?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:rags like Popular Science.
Compared to Scientific American, or even Discover and New Scientist, yes. Anything you read in it should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, as Popular Science, as stated in another thread, can be summed up as sci-fi for people who don't read sci-fi.Ryan Thunder wrote:Popular Science is considered a rag?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:rags like Popular Science.
If I could get into it at the age of nine, then I suspect most of the people here could get into it now.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:It is, however, quite . . . how shall I say this . . . dry in its tone and tends to go into a level of detail that makes it somewhat inaccessible to some laypersons.
Way back when it was first started it was actually about various inventions that were popping up. For a while they even operated a patent office, IIRC. That was well over a hundred years ago*, however. In the time that I've had a subscription it's actually gotten a little less technical, and there hasn't been an article about anything hands-on in a while now. Nowadays it's just a magazine about science, usually newer stuff. It is not, and never has been, a peer-reviewed journal.Count Chocula wrote:IMO it's a whole lot better than PopSci, but can't really stand up to peer-reviewed journals or specialist magazines like Sky & Telescope. I may be missing the whole point of the magazine's existence, though.
That being said, the main articles are generally written by the researchers themselves (who are "real" scientists with peer-reviewed work). So it's a "popular science" magazine in the sense that it's not being peer-reviewed, but most of it is dumbed down only to the level of the reasonably-scientifically-literate citizen. Which is leaps and bounds ahead of something like New Scientist or the typical science story on CNN.RRoan wrote:It is not, and never has been, a peer-reviewed journal.
Have you seen the advertisments in the last few pages of the magazine?Ryan Thunder wrote:Popular Science is considered a rag?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:rags like Popular Science.
I never actually read them.[R_H] wrote:Have you seen the advertisments in the last few pages of the magazine?Ryan Thunder wrote:Popular Science is considered a rag?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:rags like Popular Science.