New Scientist Sucks?

[zosima]

Seriously though. How often do you see someone using a quote from New Scientist to justify some infernal sort of scientific woo. Its like some sort of scientific telephone. *

The scientist writes the paper and does the best job they at communicating. Their secretary(or grad student) writes the press release from the paper but smooths over some details to make it easier for the public to read. The New Scientist reporter reads the press release and writes an article that distorts a little bit more and replaces some important technical details with very loose metaphors. Then the New Scientist editor sucks the last bit of meaning out of the article to meet their advertising goals, fit it in the allotted space, and lower it down to the technical ability of the general public. Then some woozy fellow decides to take that article from and interpret a subset of the article as narrowly as possible to fit their point.

Its like putting truth through a blender.

Thoughts?

ETA: *Telephone is that game you play where you keep tell a message to a subsequent person in a sequence of people until the last person in the sequence ends up with a very distorted message.

[Beausoleil]

I gave up reading it years ago . Not enough information to form a judgement in fields I have some knowledge of, and tended to be misleading in my specialty which decreased my confidence in the articles about other areas.

Enjoyed it was I was at school though - it's not meant to be a source journal, it's more of a fanzine and does (did) a good job getting people "into" science.

[SusanB-M1]

Last year I paid a subscription for the New Scientist audio version, delivered weekly. Playing time is about 75 min, there are two readers and they read a selection of articles. I have very much enjoyed them and as a non-scientist I have found quite a bit of it going over my head! However, if I were actually reading it, I would almost certainly have given up on some articles after a few paragraphs, but listening to it demands less concentration. I think the contents are pitched about right, but being, as I say, a non-scientist, I realise that is not a very useful comment!

[KeyserSoze]

I only know about newscientist from their Youtube channel. The videos are short but interesting, and I've never seen any of them promoting obvious woo.

Could you give a specific example of where they actually screwed up?

[skeptigirl]

I've seen some good stuff and some bad stuff, but have not read anything from it recently. I'll have to look at some recent issues next time I'm in the library.

[Wowbagger]

I only recently discovered how much NewScientist sucked, when I noticed a particularly laughable cover on one of their issues. I made a thread about it, here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114915

[a_unique_person]

It doesn't suck. It fills a useful niche in the level of science reporting for those who aren't scientists but still want to get some idea of what is going on in the world. It's certainly miles ahead in it's level of science reporting quality than the daily newspaper.

[zosima]

I only know about newscientist from their Youtube channel. The videos are short but interesting, and I've never seen any of them promoting obvious woo.

Could you give a specific example of where they actually screwed up?

I don't think that they directly promote woo. What I think they do is distort as they try to communicate concepts that are either largely mathematical or incredibly complicated or both.

I think they are often misquoted in the support of woo.

ETA: I think they are also guilty of unnecessarily sensationalizing. They are constantly promising or threatening exaggerated things that never happen. I think if you want good quality science news, your best bet is to read the news section at the beginning of Science or Nature. I think New Scientist is like the USA Today of scientific news.

[Mojo]

It doesn't suck. It fills a useful niche in the level of science reporting for those who aren't scientists but still want to get some idea of what is going on in the world. It's certainly miles ahead in it's level of science reporting quality than the daily newspaper.


The problem is that because it's got the word "scientist" in the title woos think they can use it as an authority.

[Meridian]

I stopped reading New Scientist after their appalling article about Roger Shawyer's `reactionless' EmDrive. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html.) I suppose it's ok to cover something that's obviously crackpot: it violates conservation of momentum if it operates as he claimed, which is as plausible as a working perpetual motion machine. But it was worse than that - the article mentioned his purported theoretical explanation, which was supposed to rely on relativistic electromagnetism. The problem is that momentum is conserved in relativistic electromagnetism, so whatever is going on with his experiments, any physicist could tell straight away that his explanation must be nonsense!

I'm not sure why it annoyed me so much, but it's really on exactly the same level as writing about a perpetual motion machine and saying opinions differ on whether it works or not.

[a_unique_person]

I stopped reading New Scientist after their appalling article about Roger Shawyer's `reactionless' EmDrive. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html.) I suppose it's ok to cover something that's obviously crackpot: it violates conservation of momentum if it operates as he claimed, which is as plausible as a working perpetual motion machine. But it was worse than that - the article mentioned his purported theoretical explanation, which was supposed to rely on relativistic electromagnetism. The problem is that momentum is conserved in relativistic electromagnetism, so whatever is going on with his experiments, any physicist could tell straight away that his explanation must be nonsense!

I'm not sure why it annoyed me so much, but it's really on exactly the same level as writing about a perpetual motion machine and saying opinions differ on whether it works or not.

They should certainly work on lifting their standards. My guess is the publisher is trying to boost circulation. Just as long as we never see a "Headless Hadron in Topless Particle Accelerator" Headline I'll be OK.

[articulett]

I don't think that they directly promote woo. What I think they do is distort as they try to communicate concepts that are either largely mathematical or incredibly complicated or both.

I think they are often misquoted in the support of woo.

ETA: I think they are also guilty of unnecessarily sensationalizing. They are constantly promising or threatening exaggerated things that never happen. I think if you want good quality science news, your best bet is to read the news section at the beginning of Science or Nature. I think New Scientist is like the USA Today of scientific news.

That's pretty much my experience. It's good for getting people interested in science... some stuff skews slightly woo or can be used as such... some stuff is way over my head... and a lot of it is just sort of fun or interesting. Online, it's a good place to get a summary and an idea as to how to find out more. But it has a mixed reputation.

I really like Scientific Americans Mind magazine...

[zosima]

I stopped reading New Scientist after their appalling article about Roger Shawyer's `reactionless' EmDrive. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html.) I suppose it's ok to cover something that's obviously crackpot: it violates conservation of momentum if it operates as he claimed, which is as plausible as a working perpetual motion machine. But it was worse than that - the article mentioned his purported theoretical explanation, which was supposed to rely on relativistic electromagnetism. The problem is that momentum is conserved in relativistic electromagnetism, so whatever is going on with his experiments, any physicist could tell straight away that his explanation must be nonsense!

I'm not sure why it annoyed me so much, but it's really on exactly the same level as writing about a perpetual motion machine and saying opinions differ on whether it works or not.

I stand corrected they do directly support woo.

[articulett]

I have to agree...

Damn.

[a_unique_person]

I stand corrected they do directly support woo.

I was scratching my head over that one, too. Is it better to get people to write to them and complain?

[articulett]

They had a piece from a semi intelligent design proponent once that made me leery of them.

Or maybe it was a god believer... I can't remember. I felt it was out of place in a science mag.

[orphia nay]

There will always be woos extrapolating unfeasible ideas out of scientific hypotheses.

I used to like reading New Scientist because, being a non-scientist, it dumbed things down a bit to my level.

But I stopped buying it about the same time that they had an article about Quantum Teleportation and they featured a cover picture of a pair of painted-up twins and the headline "Is he here, or is he there"? I felt that that was taking a major leap of faith from what the article revealed about electrons behaviour.

Having said that, I feel like buying it again, just to test my critical thinking skills.

[Acleron]

I stopped reading New Scientist after their appalling article about Roger Shawyer's `reactionless' EmDrive. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html.)

That was my turning point as well.

But I feel they have been slipping in standards for some years as circulation figures and profits have become all important.

[Meridian]

I was scratching my head over that one, too. Is it better to get people to write to them and complain?

I believe lots of people did complain. I'd be interested to know whether they ever produced a sensible response. All I can find is this http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html, which is rather pathetic.

[Gregoire]

I believe lots of people did complain. I'd be interested to know whether they ever produced a sensible response. All I can find is this http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html, which is rather pathetic.

Just whatever you do, I recommend not giving them your credit card number to subscribe.

I signed up for a 4 issue trial subscription some months back (which required a credit card number). I enjoyed the issues I read, but found I really didn't have the time to read another magazine. I went to their website early on and said not to sign me up for a real subscription....no response. I went there multiple more times....no response. I went to their complaint department on their website to complain about not getting a response.....no response.

In the meantime, I kept getting magazines, even after my trial had run out. Then I then called my credit card company and found that they had just billed it for a full subscription. Needless to say, I am contesting it and will probably win, but still this has been a great big hassle.

[Mojo]

They should certainly work on lifting their standards. My guess is the publisher is trying to boost circulation. Just as long as we never see a "Headless Hadron in Topless Particle Accelerator" Headline I'll be OK.


It could be worse: http://www.badscience.net/?p=238

[Sturgeon]

I read New Scientist and I find it mostly quite good. I do see too many speculative physics and cosmology articles, which I ignore. These are often the cover stories. Otherwise it seems reasonable. But if people don't like it, what general science magazine out there is better in your opinion? I've tried Discover and was very disappointed with it. It's lightweight and they seem to like to publish controversy just for the sake of it, regardless of the scientific merits.

[articulett]

I like Scientific American...
and Scientific American Mind...

Michael Shermer writes for them and they are strong on evolution and have lots of good specials.

Seed is great new... PZMyers (Phraryngula) writes for them....

[GreyICE]

It beats Discover or "Popular ______" as a magazine.


Sure, it doesn't hit full scientific rigor, but it is pretty good. It is not anywhere near as good as mythbusters (in that it's cheerleading instead of asking "what's wrong with this picture") but we need more people interested in science, every little bit helps.

If someone reads an article on quantum teleportation, asks 'does this really works' and goes and finds out from real sources, I'm happy.

As for quoting, creationists have managed to quote Gould when attacking evolution. If you're willing to quote out of context, anything is fair game. Woo will find quotes, so it's best to just ignore it and move on.

[leon_heller]

I stopped reading New Scientist after their appalling article about Roger Shawyer's `reactionless' EmDrive. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html.) I suppose it's ok to cover something that's obviously crackpot: it violates conservation of momentum if it operates as he claimed, which is as plausible as a working perpetual motion machine. But it was worse than that - the article mentioned his purported theoretical explanation, which was supposed to rely on relativistic electromagnetism. The problem is that momentum is conserved in relativistic electromagnetism, so whatever is going on with his experiments, any physicist could tell straight away that his explanation must be nonsense!

I'm not sure why it annoyed me so much, but it's really on exactly the same level as writing about a perpetual motion machine and saying opinions differ on whether it works or not.

Another piece of rubbish in the article is the claim that he gets a Q of 50,000 in a microwave cavity. They can have Qs of a few thousand, but nothing like that.

I found the EmDrive web site:

http://www.emdrive.com/

Leon