Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (3000)	9/11/2009 8:08:07 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The argument was your insistance that a non-scientific magazine was the same as a scientific journal. No, I said I don't care about the difference, just like most people don't. It wouldn't matter to my point if there were no scientific journals in the world. The magazine in question would still be a magazine on science. ---------------------------------------------- <Pretty much. I don't distinguish between "real scientific journals" and magazines like the one in question and most people don't. > Agreed (most people dont), but THAT isn't scientists fault, they present in Scientific Journals and have no control over the "spin" that popular media puts on it. That's exactly a big problem. Ah, you see a problem now. In the popular mind, the journals you're talking about don't even exist. The "Journal of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies", to choose a mythical example, will be read by what? - a few hundred people in university geology departments and probably only by a handful of them. OTOH, a popular magazine of science will be in every public library and large book store in the country. ------------------------------------------ < I consider the popular conceptions of science in our society important. > Me too. VERY! a And badmouthing scientists because you don't like what they have to say rather than working within accepted rules of discussion and science is counterproductive. The thing is I haven't made a single badmouthing comment about the guys who write in the "Journals of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies" type journals. I'm talking about Michael Shermer and similar types. Shermer as an example, is NOT a scientist but poses as one for the general public and the media. The unknown scientific schlubs in the university geology departments ... I'm not commenting on at all. If you want me to comment on them, I'd say its a shame they don't get upset about the Shermers of the world, but then they may not pay attention as he's not saying anything about subsurface geology or whatever their field is. ---------------------------------- Al Gore included to be honest... he has few credentials and many a scientist think the emotional backlash isnt worth it. Most biologists are MORE concerned about what they consider the root of any potential "human caused global warming" anyway... pollution, biodiversity, etc. This thread is divisive enough, I'll not comment on Gore.