Australian Politics Forum - Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS

Mortdooley

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7315
Texas Gulf Coast
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #15 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Back to top

The only difference between a Communist and a Democrat is the spelling.

IP Logged

AiA

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 18405
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #16 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

Back to top

“Jerry, just remember: It’s not a lie … if you believe it.” George Costanza

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 56793
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #17 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:33pm

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 8:59pm:

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 1:20am:

Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings.

What science has he denied. Wink

You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals.

Bah Humbug. They are just as corrupt for the $$$ and propaganda frenzy as Time Magazine, Unicef and many other great established and dusty Propaganda machines.
Just like that crap military propaganda movie The Hurt Locker beating anti-Military movie Avatar for the Bush cause in the Middle-East. Thankfully Cameron was pleased his Ex beat him rather than anyone else. Keeping it humble.
Even during Hillary's campaign all female leading role models (like Rey from Star Wars) were removed from all Art related movie and entertainment merchandise and promotions, while leading Female role models in movies and TV series in 'Political or Legal' roles were pumped out - the Media was grooming the Public to vote for Hillary.

Considering I've never given a rats about Trump. I can't help finding myself disturbed by the sudden vicious attack on Trump right from the start he was asked by 65,000 Americans to run for President. The Media onslaught has been constant and with its many Political allies like Pelosi and media-savvy Harris trying to make dents on Trump's shield. Somehow they all fall short of their 'bullying' attempts on Trump. Clinton failed. Pelosi failed. Harris will fail because she will fail to replace Biden who will be in her way. Strike 3 - the Democrats are out!

Even the 'death threat' of more riots, lootings, murders, etc on the streets by the Democrat backed Lefties and BLMs - if Trump wins a 2nd Term shows what we are dealing with here. My money is on the little red devil Harkonnen Trump, with horns like the thorns of a rose.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 120402 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS Reply #18 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:43pm Politics getting involved with so called science. Real science has nothing to do with politics.
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58823
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #19 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 4:15pm

8Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 8:40am:

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

JPrime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:08pm:

Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire?

They are not trading on being 'experts'.

So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert'

Depends on what he's talking about, what he is saying, who is paying him and what the contrary views are. (Very significant considerations when the expertupuse is based on modeling with lots of assumptions.)

Most experts are such in very narrow fields of specialisations. The further they stray from those narrow fields the less expertise and authority they have.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 56793
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #20 - Sep 19^th, 2020 at 6:22pm

Frank wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 4:15pm:

8Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 8:40am:

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

JPrime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:08pm:

Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire?

They are not trading on being 'experts'.

So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert'

Depends on what he's talking about, what he is saying, who is paying him and what the contrary views are. (Very significant considerations when the expertupuse is based on modeling with lots of assumptions.)

Most experts are such in very narrow fields of specialisations. The further they stray from those narrow fields the less expertise and authority they have.

Well I'm glad we live in the outer rim of the Milky Way. We wouldn't want a narrow field of specialisation like a Neanderthal that close to the action.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Mortdooley

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7315
Texas Gulf Coast
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #21 - Sep 20^th, 2020 at 1:03am

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Back to top

The only difference between a Communist and a Democrat is the spelling.

IP Logged

AiA

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 18405
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #22 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 1:03am:

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie. This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 21^st, 2020 at 6:04am by AiA »

“Jerry, just remember: It’s not a lie … if you believe it.” George Costanza

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 56793 Gender:	Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS Reply #23 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 8:16am Morty has a point. When a Scientific Magazine gets 'political' - you know its just another corrupt well bought magazine.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21060
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #24 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 1:26pm

AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 1:03am:

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie. This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

So what is this alleged "hard data" re Trump? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #25 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 5:38pm

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:

What science has he denied. Wink

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:

Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. But perhaps you can show the current "scientific" credentials. Grin

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:37am:

So no evidence for their expertise then? Why am I not surprised. You do know science is an ongoing venture? It doesn't stagnate.

Perhaps you could point out where they are "right" about their scientific conclusions that they draw. Wink

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:39am:

Boom goes BH. He just doesn't know what he means. Perhaps you can show where SA is "right" on their purported "science". Wink

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 1:26pm:

So what is this alleged "hard data" re Trump? Wink

Did you look up what "sealioning" is lee? Wink

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21060 Gender:	Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS Reply #26 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 5:53pm Poor petal. Did you have something you wanted to say? You mean your trolling of me? Yes I did.😂😂😂😂🤣🤣 But I notice you didn't attempt any rebuttal, petal. Why is that? Upon what data did SA rely?🙃
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58823
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #27 - Sep 21^st, 2020 at 6:43pm

AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 1:03am:

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie. This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

What did you think when the NYPD union endorsed Trump?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Mix_Master

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 999
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #28 - Sep 22^nd, 2020 at 10:43am

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

They are not trading on being 'experts'.

This is demonstrably true.

What they are, in fact, "trading on", is whipping up gullible people with opinions dressed up as fact.

That so many fall for it says a lot about the ability (or more correctly the lack of ability) for many people to think critically.

It's made Murdoch a very wealthy man. And one who wields far too much influence in so-called "Western Democracies".

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58823
Gender: male

Re: Scientific American Magazine: A FIRST IN 175 YEARS
Reply #29 - Sep 22^nd, 2020 at 11:45am

On modeling

For those unfamiliar with the complexity of any topic, modelling gives a reassuring level of precision. The outputs are clean and precise. Graphs can demonstrate an unerring prediction of the future and all can be reassured about the correctness of their policies.

These outputs provide a false precision that hides the making of the sausage and the, often, hundreds of assumptions that must be made to generate a precise estimate. What you get out of the model is only as good as what you put in and there is often little scrutiny of what gets put in.

An over reliance on models ends up hiding the key determinants of a decision’s outcome rather than illuminating them. Remember we were told at the start of the pandemic that 50,000 to 150,000 Australians could die. These predictions have proven to be widely inaccurate. At the time they were made in good faith but the assumptions do not appear to have been updated based on the information we now have on the virus.

We have seen the same saga occur over other contentious policy issues, such as climate change. Climate change modelling regularly forecasts armageddon-like outcomes if there is no action taken to try to change the temperature of the globe. These models of global climate have to make gigantic assumptions over weather patterns, the role of water vapour and the formation of clouds. It is no surprise then that the models often generate incorrect forecasts.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/virtual-reality-check/

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged