What Public sources of Popular Science publications do you think do a disservice to Scientific understanding?
It seems like every mainstream source is addicted to selling flashy nonsense marketed at Science.
Pic is an example.
Myself? I can't stand
- Discovery Channel/Magazine
- History Channel
- Popular Science
- All of Youtube
- Animal Planet
- Scientific American
- New Scientist
- Discover Magazine
In fact, National Geographic is the only mainstead publication I trust 40% of the time.
Anything on facebook. "I fucking love science" is a terrible page and should be destroyed. As well as anyone who listens to Bill Nye and NDT for anything.
>>8112069
Yeah I fucking hate all that bullshit clickbait articles.
nasa.gov usually is pretty collected though. For an alternative to clickbait articles like "Is X healthy", look at PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
IEEE magazines are ok.
I really can't say any other places though. You just gotta sift through the loads of bullshit.
>>8112073
You're really trying to get in-depth information through a Facebook page? You can't go to a comedian show and then complain there isn't enough serious reflection.
Bill Nye's show did a lot of good in getting young kids interested. NDE's version of the Cosmos is still a good watch.
SciShow can give a good surface-level understanding to things and provides good sources.
But other than that, yes I agree. "THESE FOUR THINGS COULD CUT CANCER RATES IN HALF"
"THIS CAVE WAS ISOLATED FOR YEARS, CHECK OUT WHAT THESE SCIENTISTS FOUND"
god it's horrible.
>>8112090
>You're really trying to get in-depth information through a Facebook page?
Nowhere did I say that.
Bill Nye's show was good. He, on the other hand, does a disservice to the scientific community through his blatant shilling. NDT doesn't stay in his lane. Both are too pretentious to be taken seriously
>>8112102
Okay yeah I misread the title as asking which publications are actually good. Your comment about facebook makes more sense now.
>>8112069
Discovery stings the most. I remember when that was actually a good channel with worthwhile shit on it. History too, to a lesser extent.
On that note, TLC used to be The Learning Channel, and they've just stopped trying altogether. So part of me wants to say "at least Discovery is still nominally science-related," but I really don't know whether that makes things better or worse.
>>8112109
All good senpai. My bad if I came off dickish.
>>8112073
This
>>8112115
I think once the History Channel figured out it could use hype and exploit the argument from ignorance to draw crowds in, everything went to shit.
Then again, Popular Science has always been 90% bullshit.
pleb prassing through, visiting /sci/
Is Quanta Magazine a decent publication?
Its often may go to publication
>>8112471
>Quanta Magazine
Eh, you can usually tell from the headline titles.
Let's take a look.
I found these:
>Entanglement Made Simple
>New Evidence for the Necessity of Loneliness
>The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
>How Neanderthal DNA Helps Humanity
>New Support for Alternative Quantum View
>A New Physics Theory of Life
Which seem to be the most extreme on their front page... but they're not out there or flag waving, so it SEEMS "legit", but I'd have to take a deeper dive before I'd sponsor it personally.
>Strangers sponsoring things on the internet
>lolXlulz
