Weird Science

[DonPMitchell]

Have you noticed how much rubbish is being served up as "science" on the net?  MSNBC, a mainstream news outlet has this ridiculous story as their main science feature last week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18849675/

Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP.

A lot of this is being produced by dodgy websites like LiveScience.com and Space.com, which churn out and sell stories, but without careful scientific editing or expertise.  Then there are smaller blog-like sites that pander to the crank-science enthusiasts, like Centuari Dreams.  Some of these sites are fun and colorful, but they are not presenting good science.  You can never be sure if you are reading something accurate and logical, or if its is just some nutty half-baked ideas about warp drives and anti-gravity and aliens.

It's tough to find good websites about science.  Here are a few:

http://www.nature.com/news/index.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/scitech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/default.stm

But even in these cases, you always have to be aware of editorial bias.  The BBC is pretty leftwing.  Nature is a solid journal, but it has some non-science people on its staff who use it as a soap box for their opinions sometimes.  But generally, you will not find out and out crackpot science presented.

[Johno]

The CS Monitor generally saves its out-and-out crackpot material for theology, which I'd imagine wasn't really your biggest issue, Don, but it annoys the living crud out of me!

[LunarOrbit]

I've always wondered about the Christian Science Monitor since "Christian" and "Science" are two words that don't seem to belong together. But maybe I've been misinformed and they have little to do with religion.

[DonPMitchell]

Oddly enough, the Christian Science Monitor is one of the worlds great newspapers, which is not an endorsement of their nutty religion.

A friend of mine at Bell Labs died because he was a Christian Scientist and refused to get routine medical treatment for pneumonia.  So I am not a fan.  Scientology is also completely non scientific and violently nasty to people who try to leave it or criticize it.  Mormonism is almost becoming mainstream now, even though they have fundamentalists who practice polygamy and believe you can become a god of your own planet after you die.

Cults are frauds.  Religions are ancient frauds.

[cartmancakes]

I was always a bid fan of www.badastronomy.com

[jdbenner]

Cults are frauds.  Religions are ancient frauds.

I am a Christian.  And I would agree with you.  With the exceptions of Christianity and its parent religion Judaism.

Of course given the contradictions between religions, logically most or all religions must be false.

[Satanic Mechanic]

But even in these cases, you always have to be aware of editorial bias.  The BBC is pretty leftwing.  Nature is a solid journal, but it has some non-science people on its staff who use it as a soap box for their opinions sometimes.  But generally, you will not find out and out crackpot science presented.

Another bad one is Scientific America.  That mag went into crapper real quick.  Its articles are very political and mostly about the enviroment.  It is like the Green Party is in control of it.
I agree with you on the UFO business, many channels show stuff like this to increase ratings.  The History channel, which is the only channel I watch (I only watch the TV 10 hours a week, it gets less over summer) show UFO shows on primetime.

SM

[jdbenner]

  The History channel, which is the only channel I watch (I only watch the TV 10 hours a week, it gets less over summer) show UFO shows on primetime.

SM

True enough, They showed one today.

[spacecat27]

Another bad one is Scientific America.  That mag went into crapper real quick.  [/quote] -SM

I sure agree there.  It was a well-respected magazine for over 100 years-- then suddenly their 'facelift' about 15 years ago made it begin to look more like 'Popular Science.'  8 - 10 years ago they dumped great columnists like Martin Gardner, James Burke and Phillip Morrison- only because they were old- and replaced them with young humorists like Steve Mirsky.
My father subscribed to SciAm his whole life, I followed.... but won't be renewing this year.

[Johno]

I've always wondered about the Christian Science Monitor since "Christian" and "Science" are two words that don't seem to belong together. But maybe I've been misinformed and they have little to do with religion.

Mainstream Christians often refer to Christian Science as 'Two lies for the price of one.'  They can't really claim to be truly Christian (as they deny many central doctrines), nor can they really claim any true science.

[DonPMitchell]

I asked my dad about Christian Science once.  He was an Congregational minister (a very liberal demonination which is now a days called United Church of Chirst).  He said "Mary Baker Eddie was a medium who made it."  That is, made it to the big time.

At the turn of the century, around 1900, there was a great resurgence of religious and spiritual movements of all sorts.  Edger Casey, Mary Baker Eddie, Alaster Crowley, Gurdjiff, etc, etc.  Christian Science is one of the few to remain.

It's interesting to look at the birth of recent religions like Mormonism, CS, Scientology.  I think they are no different from ancient religions, but the true historical details of the origins of Hinduism or Christianity are long lost.  Only their own mythological writings remain, although if you dig hard you can find people who try to study the history and literature of ancient religions objectively.