Letter to the Editors at Scientific American Magazine

I entreat the editors at Scientific American to please stick to science.  When you do, I feel that I am getting my money's worth and am not wasting my time and energies wading through articles (and especially blogs and columns) that are not worth the effort.  I do not need or desire anyone on your staff to suggest to me what I ought to think about non-scientific endeavors, i.e.; religion art, politics, etc.

I know this can be difficult when dealing with the soft sciences, but I think you can do better.  And when dealing with more concrete disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, geology, etc., please do not get all gobbledygookish on your readers.  I do not need to read all the things that science thinks dark matter is when in fact no one (yet) knows.  I don't mind reading through theories or even flights of fancy, but so often it is presented as "wow, scientists now believe x,y,z" when in fact no science has actually been done, or no consensus exists because it is early days yet.

When science is done badly, or even presented badly, it makes it very difficult to discuss (for instance) global warming, where science HAS been done and there IS a consensus, with ones relatives who insist they have done the research and they are certain that global warming is a hoax.  When you present science badly, and when you insist on publishing op eds and blogs on subjects that do not fall within the parameters of scientific inquiry, then you muddy the waters that you insist you are trying to clear.  Then we are fishing blindly and no nourishment can be found

Meanwhile... I am getting so tired of all the religiosity of the anti-religious bloggers and columnists that you give ample space to in your otherwise wonderful magazine. The pursuit of science seems every bit as vulnerable as the pursuit of other disciplines to the fallibility of all human endeavor. I think that it would be a much more worthwhile endeavor, in the cause of advancing science, to first clean your own house, take the beam out of your own eye, etc. Science claims for itself things that the scientific method has not yet supported. It may yet, or it may not. But until it actually does, better to be careful how you report information.  I LOVE science, good science. Good science does not include spending your time and space arguing about things that are outside the domain of science. So, give me well designed, constructed and implemented experiments, and keep me updated on the work of scientists. Please do not make science into another religion.