Scientific American

I prefer to think of Scientific American as having expanded its scope to provide a little more than the in-depth articles that it continues to have. In fact, if you compare the issues from the last two years with older issues (say from the early '90's) you'll see that it's just getting larger; the quality of the articles is still there, but there's just more stuff.

I concur, I haven't seen any evidence of a decline in quality. And who says biographies are useless?

The articles must be getting dumber, for I understand more of them than I used to.

See [But if you scroll it down, you may see details of an error.]

I also concur. I have just started getting it again and I see no evidence of any decline in quality.

From time to time, 'thin' issues are published!

At least the technical articles are written by experts (usually), rather than journalists.

I do not know if anyone else has noticed this, but some of the articles seem to have a subtle, almost imperceptible, political angle. For what political party? who knows.

I have read SciAm ever since getting bored in my advanced 5th grade Rapid Learning class and discovering it on the shelves. The good news is they avoid the incestuous jargon and big math formulas that all the disciplines of science invent for their own uses. The bad news is they avoid the incestuous jargon and big math formulas that would actually back up some of the harder concepts. Have you ever tried to grok QuantumPhysics based entirely on homiletic analogies? -- PhlIp

ScientificAmerican declined in quality when MartinGardner left.

One interesting fact about the magazine is that one of its first owners, Alfred Beach, created NewYorkCity's first subway. It was a pneumatic-powered system that went just one CityBlock, constructed on the sly since its existence imperiled Mayor Tweed and Tammany Hall's financial interests. Unfortunately, a stock market crash ended any chance of extending it. See

An interesting thing to do is:

To the author of the above: Have you done this interesting thing? If so, what were the results and the factual conclusions? I would like to know (why it is so interesting)! -- MarkRogers

I stopped reading SciAm because of it became increasingly politicized. Then I read NewScientist for a while, but now that also seems pretty politicized. So I'm looking again for an alternative. -- RujithdeSilva

The politicians picked that fight, not the scientists. In theory, society would fund the Vulcan Science Academy, and they'd do whatever they need to with the money. In fact, certain politicians - I'm not saying which ones - hate when scientific research interferes with their pet theories. Such as "schools are cheaper than jails". So funding for scientific research is horribly politicized...--PhlIp


EditText of this page (last edited March 19, 2014) or FindPage with title or text search