Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Genie Scott joins Scientific American's Board of..
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2009 :  13:54:49  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here is some news.

NCSE's Scott joins Scientific American's revamped Board of Advisers

… In her letter to Dr. Scott, acting editor in chief Mariette DiChristina noted, "We at Scientific American admire your work, and would greatly value having the benefit of your opinions."

Other members of this select group include Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner for physics); Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School professor and founder of the Center for Internet and Society; physicist and author Lawrence M. Krauss; microbiologist and immunologist John P. Moore of Cornell University; Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute; Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at University of Pennsylvania; and Martin Rees, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge.


I put this announcement here because of Genie Scott's focus on evolution and creationism. For my part, I'm wishing her the best.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2009 :  15:04:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I, for one, welcome our new materialist overlords.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/19/2009 15:12:41
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2009 :  15:20:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there.

Anyway, kudos to Genie. I guess it's a respectable gig. I hope she can help raise the magazine's profile with younger readers.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2009 :  16:48:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there.
I finally let my subscription to Discover drop because there was too much soft stuff in there. SciAm (which I still get) has much "harder" popular science pieces.

I haven't read more than one Smithsonian, but NatGeo had, until recently, a whole different subscriber model than most magazines and a whole different audience than SciAm or Discover. A lot of the people I knew who were/are NatGeo subscribers were subscribers for the photos and/or for collection purposes (shelves and shelves of yellow spines), or they are doctors who just put the magazine in the waiting room. In short, I think comparing NatGeo subscription numbers to just about any other magazine is a bit unfair.

SciAm's numbers were probably higher in the past, as they seem to be shifting to an online model. The paper magazine is filled with "find out more at [SciAm Web URL]" on just about every article. If they actually make money with the online content, I wouldn't be surprised to see the hardcopy version vanish in a few years.

But yeah, congrats to Eugenie!

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2009 :  16:59:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there.

Anyway, kudos to Genie. I guess it's a respectable gig. I hope she can help raise the magazine's profile with younger readers.



To my way of thinking, Scientific American Magazine is superior to Discover or National Geographics because it was, and probably still is, more straight science and less populist science than the other magazines. Michelle buys the print version of Scientific American Mind and plows though it. She doesn't always agree with an article that's of interest to her, but she likes that it the articles aren't a bunch of fluff pieces.

It's a respectable magazine which may explain why it has never had the circulation that Discover or National Geographic enjoys.

As for Smithsonian, I think that's comparing apples to oranges. The Smithsonian covers a wide range of subjects and probably most of them have nothing to do with science.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.16 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000