Don't trust NewScientist magazine

[@mwal223]

At this point if I read that the sky was blue in a New Scientist article, I would have to go outside and check

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's a sad example of the state of popular science media.

[@rockets4kids]

The sky isn't blue, it only appears blue in certain circumstances.

[@Nick-o-time]

​@@rockets4kidsnobody likes a pedant.

[@rockets4kids]

@@Nick-o-time Take a good hard look in the mirror, bub. That's what people really hate.

[@collinhicks37]

​@@rockets4kids I can think of very few people who hate mirrors.

[@leontrotsky7816]

The Jim Al_Khallili thing is an example of the phenomenon where, once you've presented a TV or radio show on any subject, you magically become an expert in everything related to that subject. The actress Rebecca Front used to get interviewed by reporters about real political crises on the strength of having been in a TV show about fictional political crises (to her credit, she admitted finding this really weird).

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's a phenomenon worth making a video on!

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

LiveScience is so much worse... That cringy article about there being "more water in sand - than in the ocean." (They confused "aqueous" with "aqua.")

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yikes! While I'm here I'll say I've also seen some bad takes from IFL Science.

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

@@veritasetcaritas yeah ....IFL was the Chosen One!! 😭

[@williamjoshualucas6503]

Please, please do Scientific American next. Its decline is as bad or worse.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I'll look into it!

[@albaniaalban]

What do you mean? It's taken a more explicit progressive stance in recent years, but the content is the same hypothesis overhyping it has always been, as far as I know. How has it declined worse than NewScientist?

[@kimwelch4652]

While the science in all these magazines has always been bad (at least back to the 1960's though most people didn't notice), I will admit the writing has declined in magazine's in general. This is in part due to the rise of the Internet which has undercut the magazine market. There is no money in it except as a side piece to some other media, which has all pretty much turned in to streams. Generally, by the time some bit of news reaches a magazine, it has already been distributed globally by Internet so all they have is old news and puff-pieces.

[@DavidJBurbridge]

I remember it being decent for a popsci magazine last time I picked it up, but that was 18 years ago. I'm not surprised this is happening. Same with SciAm which I have heard has similarly fallen off. I just don't think there is commercial space for a good popsci magazine anymore. Back in the day, if you weren't affiliated with a university or institution, it was unlikely you could get your hands on real journals, especially if you didn't have money. Magazines like this were great for people to meet new topics and hear what was going on in the industry and academia while being far removed from it. It wasn't a journal but it wasn't meant to be. Now we are so spoiled for choice with both primary and secondary OA choices, as well as blogs, that the more inquisitive among us can easily stay abreast of what's going on. It's hard for people born in the late 90s or 2000s to understand how much easier it is to get your hands on real scientific publications now. Magazines like this are bound to decline further. I wonder if there is space for a kind of intermediate between this and a real journal. A journal of real reviews but for inquisitive normal teens and adults who want to touch a lot of topics.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It had some good content in the 80s when I was reading it, but yeah I think market forces have severely strangled this kind of publication. I think these days the science blogs are a good substitute.

[@flavius2884]

Ah, yes, using (pseudo)history and (pseudo)science to promote political agenda. We never learn from history.

[@veritasetcaritas]

NewScientist has fallen far.

[@thumper8684]

@@veritasetcaritas Your quotes of New Scientist failures go back to 1994. When did this start?

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@thumper8684 I couldn't be sure, but I was reading the print edition in the 80s when it had no online presence since the internet wasn't really a thing, and the print copy didn't include this kind of content. Bad history articles dating back to 1994 doesn't surprise me since the internet was definitely a thing by at least 1991, and companies were starting to realize how important it was. So I guess it might have been at least around then.

[@aureliaqueen8753]

I was just hoping for a new video haha. This is gonna be a good 30 minutes

[@aureliaqueen8753]

Very interesting, thank you

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@aureliaqueen8753 you're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@akizeta]

I was a lifelong reader since my teens in the '70s, and from early on I always regarded NS as a news magazine about science, and so likely to report on science that was going to turn out to be wrong. So I never put absolute trust in its science; I mean, if you don't trust _scientists_ to be right all the time, why should you put that burden on science reporters? But even so, the popularism seemed to get gradually worse during the '90s, and even more so during the '00s, and I finally stopped reading altogether by 2010. Though I've been tempted to pick up a copy from time to time, it really doesn't seem to be worth my attention any more.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I was reading it in the 80s, and yeah it was ok then. I thinik it definitely changed in the 90s, and that may have been due to the internet becoming accessible and many print publiations starting to push out content online. But I think it is also definitely due to the fact that so many of these articles are written by out-sourced non-specialist authors, and the editorial control is loose.

[@GreayWorks]

Big fan of your work! I am curious, have you ever thought about talking about some frequent misinterpretations or inaccurate "did you know" facts that make the rounds with channels that discuss classic literature?

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! That's actually a good idea. I've taught literary analysis for six years. Do you have any examples of channels I should look at?

[@GreayWorks]

@@veritasetcaritas I haven't seen all their videos but from what I have seen from them Overly Sarcastic Productions seem to greatly oversimplify or even just skim some books, their video on Frankenstein is a very frustrating example of this, using a commonly misused quote from the book as proof of the monster being "handsome but with uncanny eyes" which is just so wrong The line "His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful" as proof that the Monster is beautiful is used so often but out of context, as that is from Victor's POV early on when he's heavily sleep-deprived and pretty much insane when the monster comes to life he comes to his senses and becomes so sick he needs to be nursed for nearly half a year, everyone else who can see is so terrified of the monster's appearance the only one who doesn't fear him is the blind man. I love hearing people interruptions of art but I do think it can get out of hand to the point where almost purposefully misrepresent the author

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@GreayWorks thank you, that's an excellent example!

[@GreayWorks]

@@veritasetcaritas There is also a LOT of weird stuff going on with Godzilla as of late from a lot of KZbinrs having a weird view of both Japan's reception with Godzilla/Kaiju stuff as well as the origin of a lot of Kaiju media in general with videos like "Why Godzilla Doesn't Work In America" or Lockstins take on Godzilla

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@GreayWorks wow, I will definitely take a look at that!

[@HistoriaVids]

I always enjoy the type writer intro, its wonderful, right before a great video.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks! I am quite fond of it.

[@BsktImp]

I had to have a quiet word with a couple of PhD (yes, PhD!) candidates to think carefully about the appositeness of citing _New Scientist_ and _Scientific American_ editorials in the stead of the primary sources...

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yikes, yes.

[@hive_indicator318]

Citing editorials instead of primary sources? Maybe this dropout CAN go and get that degree (not going to do that crap, though.)

[@punksci6879]

Hey John Michael Godier and Anton Petrov have their place.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes they do. There is a place for responsible popular science.

[@dand1253]

My understanding of Hypatia was that her philosophical work was rather ancillary to her main historical relevance, which was trying to keep tensions between different cultural groups within Alexandria from boiling over and ultimately being lynched for her trouble.

[@veritasetcaritas]

We don't have any evidence she was trying to keep any such tensions in check. To the extent she was even aware of them, they do not appear to have been her concern, and they are never mentioned in the letters of her student Synesius when he writes to her. Hypatia was an innocent bystander caught up in events which killed both non-elite pagans and Christians as colateral damage in a political bralw between local pagan and Christian elites.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

​@@veritasetcaritasThis seems the best summery of the matter.

[@miraadi97]

I think there is a real scholarly journal named Hypatia with combinations of all science from philosophical lens in COVID, OBGYN, gender disparity, feminist literature, emotional labour, women atheist & religion. 3:42 i think that journal might have some insight i have just read relevant articles.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes there is, I've read several articles from it.

[@Goat-e3g]

Bro this is a problem with all things like new scientist implying Nature Scientific American etc..

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes there's definitely a trend.

[@xponen]

NS even report on perpetual machine, the "EM drive". This is more obvious example than the esoteric facts mentioned that I don't even remember reading.

[@veritasetcaritas]

The historical claims cited in this video are all over the place, constantly repeated year after year by media outlets and even appear on the websites of places like museums. Numerous news media outlets and websites have repeated these same myths about Hypatia, Eunice Foote, and witches' hallucinogens. Eunice Foote. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291 www.chemistryworld.com/culture/eunice-foote-the-mother-of-climate-change/4011315.article theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687 theprint.in/science/the-woman-who-predicted-global-warming-in-the-1800s/706373 nautil.us/issue/78/atmospheres/if-only-19th_century-america-had-listened-to-a-woman-scientist allthatsinteresting.com/eunice-foote www.salon.com/2020/08/26/remembering-eunice-foote-the-suffragette-scientist-who-prophesied-climate-change_partner www.dnaindia.com/science/report-eunice-newton-foote-warned-us-about-climate-change-165-years-ago-heres-what-she-had-to-say-news-alerts-updates-2919253 Hypatia. www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hypatia-ancient-alexandrias-great-female-scholar-10942888/ www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291 kids.nationalgeographic.com/history/women-heroes/article/hypatia www.thecollector.com/hypatia-of-alexandria-female-philosopher medium.com/flamma-saga/the-first-woman-mathematician-hypatia-of-alexandria-1c06cdf423e7 www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/murder-hypatia-philosopher-alexandria www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/place_settings/hypatia www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/place_settings/hypatia Witches' hallucinogens. www.livescience.com/40828-why-witches-ride-broomsticks.html www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2017/10/31/the-origin-of-witches-riding-broomsticks-drugs-from-nature-plus-shakespeare www.history.com/news/why-witches-fly-on-brooms www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/oct/31/halloween-witches-travel-sickness-drug-scopolamine www.scienceinschool.org/article/2007/witchmedicine www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/hallucinogenic-fungus-might-have-been-behind-witchcraft-hysteria www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/witches-broomstick-0016883

[@ptonpc]

Many *many* years ago, it was a reliable source but for a long time, it has been the 'science' equivalent of The Daily Sport.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I remember it was quite good in the 80s.

[@tomtech1537]

I really appreciate your content, but it is very dense which is probably required, but often results in me skipping sections.

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's ok, I also put time stamps in the video description so people can just cut to the parts they're most interested in.

[@AnthonyRusso93]

I am not sure that apples to apples in this circumstance apples meaning popular science magazines and I mean not limited to but very much including registered trademark "Popular Science" magazine. A magazine at the very least the reading material magazine characterized by glossy pages is first and foremost a form of entertainment before anything else regardless of the publication. I have heard talk that it was not exclusively MAD magazine that utilized the categorical distinction of magazine to circumnavigate regulatory legislation. Absolutely anything under the glossy standards is a vector for ad space to fall into the field of view of potential consumers and as such every magazine should be read with great preemptive skepticism. There are other forms of written media with the primary goal of informing readers and revenue is well prioritized highly as well if I am being honest, but it isn't the numero uno imperative.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This doesn't make any comparison bertween NewScientist and any other form of media, it just says "Don't trust NewScientist magazine", and explains why.

[@PawesomeCatVideo]

So.....I am waiting your recommendation for what Science magazine we should be reading??????

[@veritasetcaritas]

Not a popular science magazine, for the reasons given in the articles in my list of references, as mentioned in the video. What science magazine should you be reading? I don't know.

[@parahype]

excellent job 👍

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@thumper8684]

Just looking at the bookmarks you are very much focussed on errors in the history of science. Do you think this marks a greater disregard for accuracy by the editorial staff or simply a lack of interest in historical veracity? New Scientist has a fairly long history (at least back to the 1960's) and amounts to a large body of work (it is a weekly title). Does your critique focus on recent articles or their work as a whole?

[@veritasetcaritas]

I address that to some extent in the last section of the video. I was reading NewScientist magazine back in the 80s, before it had a website, and I can guarantee this is a more recent phenomenon. As I mentioned at the start of this video, the bad history in NewScientist tends to be the product of using freelancers, and tends to be mainly in their online articles. The last section of this video not only cites examples of miscommunicated scienec in NewScientist, but also cites a few people who are familiar with NewScientist and who likewise observe that errors in either science or history are symptomatic of a general decline in editorial regard for accuracy. One of the people cited says they used to write for NewScientist, and they noted a push for more dramatic and sensationalist articles.

[@roosterman8601]

this is gon be real good! and i hope u go with that corvee labor in ancient egypt and pyramids

[@veritasetcaritas]

I am about two thirds the way through the script for that one!

[@holycat8312]

Medical news today, psychology today, scientific american, Britannica - these are worse source of information nowadays

[@veritasetcaritas]

Britannica has certainly really fallen off.

[@cassidyarnold505]

This is weird but would you do a video on the Beaver Wars as Iroquois imperialism

[@veritasetcaritas]

Unfortunately I don't know anything about them, so I would need to look into the subject.

[@cassidyarnold505]

@@veritasetcaritas it’s fine. Indigenous history all around the world is a incredibly contentious subject. Many indigenous people don’t trust academia for clearly obvious reasons and the whole land stealing think looks bad in modern day values

[@markaxworthy2508]

In its early days, when Islam was practiced by only a ruling minority of the population, its leaders seem to have (necessarily?) given non-Muslims much intellectual freedom. This mix of political permissiveness by Muslim rulers giving intellectual space to others produced the "Islamic" Golden Age. However, the degree of intellectual freedom allowed seems to have evolved in inverse proportion to the level of Islam in the population. As Islam gained converts and became a majority religion, its highly prescriptive nature seems to have impinged on the space for intellectual freedom to the point of its virtual extinction by about 1250. Since then it is difficult to identify any significant original intellectual contributions from within the Islamic-ruled world to the advancement of global civilization. Doubtless a list can be compiled, but it will be small.

[@jimgraham6722]

Having studied the life of hypstia in some detail I am not sure your claims are anymore valid. Reality is we know very little for certain about hypatia. However, her murder at the hands of cyrils monks is very likely true.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Well I cited mainstream scholarly literature which is completely up to date, and I also cited primary sources, so feel free to identify any errors.

[@smallspidersad78]

Weird how toxic (misogynist, dog whistle-ey) some of these comments are. Thanks for the reminder to always double check. I’ve been more than a little gullible in my life, to my deep embarrassment, and it’s good to be reminded that the society of the spectacle does not leave science untouched. Sigh. I’m not a scientist but I’ve always loved reading New Scientist because I am very interested in science. Feels impossible these days to feel confident learning anything!

[@veritasetcaritas]

I just saw a bad comment on feminism which I'm going to delete. I Iwas reading NewScientist in the 80s, and it was pretty ok then, but I didn't read it after the end of that decade. From what people have said, I think it definitely changed in the 90s, and that may have been due to the internet becoming accessible and many print publiations starting to push out content online. But I think it is also definitely due to the fact that so many of these articles are written by out-sourced non-specialist authors, and the editorial control is loose.

[@wilsonian4236]

Veritas et caritas do you know any science magazine that still good nowdays? I have been reading science AAAS and nature for quite some time although not that frequent anymore,do you think they are still reliable?

[@veritasetcaritas]

I don't trust any of the popular magazines. I think Science and Nature are good, but I also think there are good blogs by scientists which are also helpful, such as Jerry Coyne's blog (though he does get invovled in a bit of culture war content), and these (though Paul Myers can be hit and miss). www.nature.com/articles/442009a Thony Christie has an excellent blog on the history of science. thonyc.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/a-mission-statement/

[@jc441-i3q]

I had no idea it got so bad. I only read New Scientist because being seen reading it got me laid so often! 😍

[@martinjackman2943]

Sir Bernard Gray.... All you need to know

[@veritasetcaritas]

He was probably influential from the point at which he bought it, and the connection with the Daily Mail is explained in this article in my list of references. www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/03/daily-mail-owner-buys-new-scientist-magazine-in-70m-deal Being purchased by the Daily Mail certainly wouldn't have improved the content.

[@psul42]

No one ever has.

[@andrewkelley9405]

gotta love all the misinformation in the world...oi vey.

[@veritasetcaritas]

KZbinr Horses had a good video on echo chambers and media literacy recently.

[@MaterialMenteNo]

​@@veritasetcaritas Bro why did you give a heart to someone who is implying (((you know exactly what)))?

[@LouiseBrooksBob]

I came to this conclusion about New Scientist back in the 1990s. Lots of speculation and use of the word "may." Do yourself a favour and buy "Nature" instead.

[@rogercroft3218]

Always remember that "may" is equivalent to "may not".

[@veritasetcaritas]

I was reading it in the 80s but not after that, so I wasn't aware of when it changed. I thinik it definitely changed in the 90s, and that may have been due to the internet becoming accessible and many print publiations starting to push out content online. But I think it is also definitely due to the fact that so many of these articles are written by out-sourced non-specialist authors, and the editorial control is loose.

[@Mrax_Taylor]

"NewScientist magazine" with that name you now it is untrustworthy

[@marcomclaurin6713]

Submitted for your approval, a new paradigm that brings Life to the ancient texts with electric universe eyes , in my video 'Sound reason ' Thank you for your time and work

[@kimwelch4652]

Neither New Scientist (nor Scientific American, Popular Science, or New Scientist) are peer reviewed and they have always been "Science" popularizing publishers. The fact that you should never take even a peer reviewed article at face value unless heavily verified by other researchers should tell you that popularizing magazines are just for entertainment and not to be treated as factual publications. Tracking down the "flaws" in the puff pieces of such publications is like pedantically pointing out the "flaws" in a Star Trek episode. Really, read it--don't read it, but just don't take it seriously. If you really want to find the failures of science publishing, do an in-depth fraud analysis on peer reviewed publications and count how many invalid or clearly falsified research papers are published without question.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This video makes a point of identifying NewScientist as a popular science magazine which is not peer reviewed. That is one of the reasons why people shouldn't trust it. But many people aren't aware of this, which is what this video aims to address. This video is not about the failures of science publishing or the weaknesses of peer review.

[@commandantcarpenter]

Dzielska

[@timkbirchico8542]

it has always been bs.

[@SteampunkGent]

NS is a pop-sci magazine, no better than Scientific American and a whole lot better than Discover. It provides "hey, wow!" content for A level students

[@veritasetcaritas]

It is defintiely pop-science, as I say in this video. But at least it's better than Discovery.

[@markaxworthy2508]

NS is not a peer-reviewable publication of new research. It is a populariser of others' original research. You don't find it referenced in academic papers. "Nature" it ain't. That said, complaints about four articles in a magazine that publishes 52 times a year, with at least half a dozen major articles and dozens of smaller articles in each, does not amount to a major indictment of it as an institution, just of the articles concerned.

[@ponozkas.r.o7320]

I love when non-biologists, non-chemists, and KZbin weirdos (also non-biologists and non-chemists) make videos debunking each other. The only thing they do is read some sources without actually understanding molecular biology, genetics, microbiology, virology, organic chemistry, or biochemistry. The world would be a better place without (KZbin) midwits.

[@nunyadayumbusiness591]

TLDR: New Scientist Magazine is an edutainment magazine, not a science journal - now watch me tear them apart for not peer-reviewing their articles. I'm not sure who's stupider - people who expect peer review from a science tabloid, people who mistake an edutainment rag for a real science journal, or people who think no-one else knows the difference.

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

Pretty fair to criticize bull crap, published in any form these days. All it usually takes is 5 mins of searching online - to see if what you hear is legit. If it ain't; re-write your article. Peak laziness to not verify/site what you post.

[@TheGahta]

So are people like you who take "they make so many mistakes" to mean "it should be peer reviewed" (would the peers in question be other tabloid writers?) But the truth is, people will likely accept the first info that's being presented to them,yes even you Which is neither new nor can it be stated often enough

[@MrGoldfish8]

Spreading misinformation is bad.

[@theonlylauri]

Science edutainment of actual quality simplifies things and makes the often dry source material more engaging. It doesn't make basic errors on its subjects due to simple laziness or an attempt to flatter its readers' preconceptions. New Scientist is pretty much trash even by its own standards.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This video doesn't say anything like "NewScientist should be peer reviewed even though it's not a science journal". It just says "Don't trust NewScientist magazine", and explains why. It doesn't hold NewScientist up to any standard, certainly not an unrealistic standard. It doesn't comment on what kind of content should or shouldn't be in the publication. It provides a reason why this popular science publication can't be relied on without verifying its claims from other sources.

[@patavinity1262]

I think you rely far too heavily on arguments from authority. Empirically, it doesn't actually matter for example whether Jim Al-Khallili is a historian or not, and it doesn't matter whether historians disagree with him. The only thing that matters is what the evidence says, not who happens to be making a given claim.

[@veritasetcaritas]

The argument from authority takes the form "X is true because authority Y says it is true". My video doesn't say anything like that. Nor does it say "Jim Al-Khallili is not a historian THEREFORE Jim is wrong". If that's all I was interested in doing, I wouldn't have presented all the evidence from actual historians, that he was wrong. The video critiques him specificallly on the basis of historical evidence, not on the basis of authority.

[@patavinity1262]

@@veritasetcaritas No, I disagree. You strongly imply throughout that he is wrong because he is not an expert in the field or because his ideas are at odds with those of experts in the field.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@patavinity1262 where do I ever do anything like that? If that was the argument, I wouldn't have bothered doing all the research to establish the facts.

[@patavinity1262]

@@veritasetcaritas I never suggested that that was the *entire* argument, only that your argument strays occasionally into the territory of argument from authority. Yes, if you like I can watch through and provide quotations to show you what I'm talking about.

[@drewduncan3436]

man from most of the comments I've been reading through this section thus far,some are very trolly and condescending at best,but cant get enough out of them how most of them just like to spat out there own ignoramic neanderthal knuckle dragging trogladidic mindsets and make all kinds of claims on most facual based KZbin channels and claim to know everything wen they really dont,its kind of sad I'm almost feel guilty 😅, well that's just to bad for them,as a side note I just came across this video and I enjoy your good content you work hard making thanks for all that you do 😊✌😎