Scientific American turns 180 this year, and recently celebrated with a collection of print features about times in history when science has seemingly done a complete pivot—a 180-degree turn...
Do nerves regrow? Are the Martian canals proof of a civilization there? How large is the planet (planetoid?) Pluto? How well have Dr. Quackenbos' observations of hypnotic effects stood the tests of the subsequent 125 years?
All published articles in a prestigious journal, reminding us to continue to question and look for reliable corroboration before believing everything we might read or be told.
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2025, @07:19AM (5 children)
Speaking of which... don't forget:
kekw
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday August 28 2025, @09:27AM (1 child)
Much better than White House fires CDC director Monarez after she refuses to resign; 4 top health officials quit [cnbc.com]
Enjoy your raw [cnn.com] milk [nbcnews.com] and measles outbreaks [nbcnews.com]. And keep your fingers crossed against next pandemic while the JFK and Orange clown provide the "entertainment" in the circus.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday August 28 2025, @01:26PM
Indeed. Who in 1962 would have ever dreamed that a little over half a century later they would hear the words "Impeach Kennedy!"?
Perhaps the headline should read "science marched on." Trump seems hell-bent on vilifying science.
Donald Trump is a mixture of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, multiplied by ten.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by DadaDoofy on Thursday August 28 2025, @05:33PM (2 children)
Yes. Many years ago, when I was growing up, there used to be actual science in Scientific American. That, and the weekly Science News, kept me well informed on science of the day.
I got older and other interests took over until, one day about 25 years ago, I picked up an issue at the grocery store. I honestly couldn't believe it. There was no such thing as "woke" back then, but I distinctly remember feeling that the entire thing, from cover to cover, had morphed into an agenda-driven political advocacy platform. Based on the evidence you present, it's only gotten "progressively" worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday August 28 2025, @06:40PM
I had a subscription in the 80s/90s back when it was good LOL.
The target market around 1960-1970 was scientist/engineer/technician people. They had stuff like advertisements for labware like indium solders.
The target market after being sold and resold several times IIRC is "I freakin love science" popular science people. The type who've never differentiated or integrated an equation or read a vernier on an instrument.
Before the internet this magazine had AWESOME monthly columns.
The amateur-level math, early computer, and science columns were awesome and you could buy a set of "the amateur scientist" on cdrom from the 30s till the 90s when they went WAY downmarket and it was no longer useful to read. Martin Gardner (the math, and some computer, guy) wrote at least a dozen or so books, most of which I own on paper and various other forms. The "Computer Recreations" column was pretty good in the early 80s; I'm sure I'm not the only kid who wrote his own Mandelbrot renderer in the 80s in interpreted home computer MS Basic using one specific 1980s issue back when that stuff was new.
Historically, many "famous names" used to write articles in SciAm. Not any more of course, all articles are only DEI journalists and AI generated/enhanced. But it used to be good in the 50s / 60s / etc.
Dying media always goes left, left media always dies. Its kind of the opposite of rats deserting the sinking ship, more normies leave, the more leftists stay and become all thats left eventually, as it sinks lower and lower. Not a special case at all. You can tell what the circulation graph of a specific media looks like based upon the media's politics, works almost every time. "go work go broke" has applied to newspapers since the 90s, for example.
I'm not sure they have any subscribers other than legacy institutions like public libraries and higher ed libraries. Its not being read, it just kinda gets delivered, sits untouched on a shelf or coffee table, then pulped after awhile. Its OK if its entirely filler material, if it doesn't contaminate any minds on the way to the recycler. It's sad, magazines used to be a valid and effective communication technology.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2025, @10:30PM
I stopped reading "PseudoScientific American" when they became atheist. Articles written from the standpoint that "obviously" there is no God, insulting and mocking anyone who is stupid enough to believe in a higher power. I am zero percent surprised they've continued down the leftist road.
Hey "PseudoScientific American", when you disprove the existence of a higher power, I'll start reading again.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday August 28 2025, @01:52PM
If you look for a perfectly working established hypnotic protocol for war training, check Bhagavad Gita.
It's perfectly structured, works instrumental for at least 6000+ years. Other cults have similar methods of brainwashing, but often rather poorly designed or structured.
The whole MKULTRA projects cluster and its post-modern continuations are just a toy shop in compare, including LLMs.
The kinder you are, the easier it is for wicked people to morally coerce you.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday August 28 2025, @03:04PM (3 children)
Just two:
Scientific American in print since: 1845
Abolition of slavery in United States: 1861-1865
Conclusion: slavery can legally co-exist with science, under certain political conditions.
The kinder you are, the easier it is for wicked people to morally coerce you.
(Score: 4, Touché) by VLM on Thursday August 28 2025, @06:54PM
Also see the somewhat snarky, somewhat dead serious, living conditions of grad students and postdocs in academia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2025, @09:23PM
Science causes slavery AMIRITE??? AM.I.RITE??????
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2025, @10:41PM
I'm taking your post as tongue-in-cheek / sarcastic humor. (Many) others might not grasp the humor.
In case you're not joking, I think you're commingling disparate things. We live in an insanely connected world. Everybody is in everyone else's business, has opinions about other people and cultures that have very little if any bearing on their lives. c0lo is a great example- constantly trolling the US.
Point is, in 1845, especially in the North US, slavery was rare and barely known or affected people's lives. Most northern slaves were treated like family and lived far better than they would have in Africa. No, I'm in NO way advocating for any kind of slavery! It was incredibly wrong. I'm just sick of hearing about it. Northern US citizens fought with and lost their lives largely to end slavery. How about we get some reparations for that?
Main point is, Scientific American, as with much / most of life coexisted with slavery and an enormous number of other wrongs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2025, @09:29PM
Stop griping and get back to returning value to the investors. The boss wants you to figure how how gaysex causes teh autisms so get cracking or starve in the street. The stakeholders want to see more effort.