I mean, really, can’t we all just put our computers together to get some sort of online free wikified version in a PLoS vein?

I mean, really, can’t we all just put our computers together to get some sort of online free wikified version in a PLoS vein?

It is a pity that the new dumbed-down Scientific American doesn’t print a math column.

I remember learning about atoms in school and being told by the nuns that electrons only circled protons, and I brought in a SA picture of an electron circling a muon to prove them wrong. (I was quite the prig). I also sent Martin Gardner a fan letter on Steiner Trees, and he wrote back.

But these days, the quality seems to have seriously slipped, and they seem more interested in printing flashy low-quality graphics to catch peoples’ attention. And every other issue seems to have a rendition of Einstein’s face on the cover. What’s the deal? I won’t deny he was a very smart guy who made some great contributions, but lately the coverage of him seems to border on fetishism. But perhaps I’m conflating SA with other magazines (Discover) doing the same thing.

There is still occasionally a good article, but it’s rarely enough to get me to buy an issue (I’ll instead read it in the coffee bar and put it back on the rack). I spend my money on American Scientist instead.

Anyhow, sorry if that became a bit of a rant. I couldn’t pass-up the opportunity to put in my two cents. :-)

May I ask, was there an uptick in subs at AS when SA changed format?

I don’t think the change in Scientific American was sudden enough for such an event to be detectable. It wasn’t an overnight transformation but a result of many large and small changes implemented over a period of years.

One thing the internet doesn’t give you is an editor. There’s a seeming infinity of good stuff out there, but sometimes you need someone to filter through all the crap and reveal the true gems.

I am not wedded to print. Much more important are timely and intellectually stimulating articles that appeal to a wide range of interests. These articles are a combination of features and columns. Even if the editors want a special issue, devoted to a single topic, there should be appeal to all readers. For example, at our departmental seminars, we often have speakers talking about cancer research. Most are utterly abominable since the speaker is so caught up in the jargon and acronyms of the business. But the other day, I heard a talk that was delightful because the speaker took the time to make his talk understandable to the physical scientists and engineers without dumbing it down. The biologists also thought is was a great talk. The same applies to what ever is the form for disseminating the information. How you describe the content, not what whiz-bangy methods you might use is what matters.

And of course I too am an undying fan of Martin Gardner and the Mathematical Games slot in the magazine.

For me, the saddest and most noticeable aspect of SA’s unraveling was the transformation of the Mathematical Recreations column (in its various incarnations). For a period of time it was (again, for me) the brightest spot in each issue. I had hundreds of older issues featuring Gardner, Hofstadter and Dewdney, and I was enjoying Ian Stewart’s work on the column on the then newer issues. It then took a sharp turn south and I virtually lost interest in the column and, to some extent, in the magazine as a whole.

It is true that today you can find information about Chaitin’s Omega, Lisp and self-reference very easily using various resources on the web. I’m less convinced that the sheer availability of information is as useful as the selective and creative story-telling achieved by Scientific American’s editors and contributors.

The wisdom of the crowds is supposed to allow us, as consumers of information (or goods), to separate wheat from chaff in the new world. I certainly believe this is true in some domains, but I’m not convinced this is always the case. Time will tell if the younger generation will indeed find effective replacements for the good judgment and creativity of people like Gardner and Hofstadter.