New Scientist Magazine...

kelly1

Hello folks. Does anyone here subscribe to NS and is it any good? Is it aimed at the lay person?

Thanks,
Noel.

Galvasean

Define 'layperson'.
I have a couple of issues. its easy enough to read. If you did honors English in school you'll have no problem whatsoever.

*strange that science is now synonymous with atheism...

Dades

I've only ever bought it a few times in airports but found it an interesting and accessible read.

I'm already struggling to keep up with my other monthlies though!

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

Define 'layperson'.

That would be a non-scientist.

Galvasean wrote: »

*strange that science is now synonymous with atheism...

Strange also that atheists are obsessed with religion

limerick_woody

I subscribed to it last year - it's pretty good if you have the time to read it - i found that it tried too hard to cover everything. It would have articles on cutting edge biology and physics that i found difficult to digest - but there was always something worth reading in every edition.

Not sure what this has to do with Atheism though...

adamd164

kelly1 wrote: »

Strange also that atheists are obsessed with religion

Not a dig or anything, but why do you come here?

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

*strange that science is now synonymous with atheism...

Some people do try to push that notion.

adamd164

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Some people do try to push that notion.

Top scientists are almost uniformly atheists. There's plenty of data, so no conjecture there. Generally, even atheists who are not scientifically minded tend to retain an interest in it, given the fact that many subscribe to its methods.

Zamboni

Dades wrote: »

I've only ever bought it a few times in airports but found it an interesting and accessible read.

Spot on.
It's an airport read along with Science Focus or American Scientist.
Always hit Hughes & Hughes for it before a flight.

In answer to OP, yeah it's fine for the layman.

JC 2K3

This thread is bizarre. The amount of times I've seen Christians on this and the Christianity forum declaring and supporting the notion that Christians can be as good scientists as Atheists, and yet now one of the most active Christians on Boards posts this thread making the implicit assumption that Atheists are somehow more knowledgable about science than Christians....

adamd164

We didn't even need it, though. The studies speak for themselves.

Dades

I don't see what the big issue with Kelly1 asking the question here. He knows we harp on about science a lot here - if he is interesting in doing a bit of science reading - why not ask?

Sheesh.

Fanny Cradock

adamd164 wrote: »

Top scientists are almost uniformly atheists. There's plenty of data, so no conjecture there. Generally, even atheists who are not scientifically minded tend to retain an interest in it, given the fact that many subscribe to its methods.

Disagreements aside, you may find this survey interesting. In many respects it supports both of our opinions on the matter, so make of it what you will. There researchers have reached some fascinating conclusions from the data they collected.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732

adamd164

Dades wrote: »

I don't see what the big issue with Kelly1 asking the question here. He knows we harp on about science a lot here - if he is interesting in doing a bit of science reading - why not ask?

Sheesh.

Oh absolutely, freedom of speech and all that. I'm just curious why someone would come here and constantly have petty digs at atheism. Contrast this with the likes of nesf, who is not an atheist but actually engages in some constructive dialogue on the subject (and yes, I know this is an agnostic board too, but the point stands). Just seems a bit sad tbh. Ah well, takes all kinds in this world I spose.

Dades

adamd164 wrote: »

I'm just curious why someone would come here and constantly have petty digs at atheism.

Have you been on the Christianity forum recently?!
Meh. I just think the baggage from other threads doesn't need to be dragged in to this one.

adamd164

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Disagreements aside, you may find this survey interesting. In many respects it supports both of our opinions on the matter, so make of it what you will. There researchers have reached some fascinating conclusions from the data they collected.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732

Thanks for the link. Yes, I'd have to say that sounds about right tbh. I decided to enter a career in science, but was never religious. The type of person who is interested in science will generally not be of a religious frame of mind: a lot to do with upbringing. I can't honestly say that my knowledge of science has led to my atheism -- more, it has reinforced it.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

That would be a non-scientist.

Strange also that atheists are obsessed with religion

Define scientist. Whats your agenda Noel? So very christian of you to start winding up us atheists. Getting bored are you? Looking for some action? There are no laymen in science? I personally belive science is part of everyday life.

Sangre

Dades wrote: »

Have you been on the Christianity forum recently?!
Meh. I just think the baggage from other threads doesn't need to be dragged in to this one.

but the christians started it with the crusades.

Mena

adamd164 wrote: »

Oh absolutely, freedom of speech and all that. I'm just curious why someone would come here and constantly have petty digs at atheism.

I for one enjoy the debates these "petty digs" usually spark.

adamd164

Why not try to make a serious point though, instead of saying things like "atheists are obsessed with religion"? That can't lead to anything other than a slagging match.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Does anyone here subscribe to NS and is it any good? Is it aimed at the lay person?

I used to subscribe to the easily-accessible NS some years ago, generally tucking in while soaking in a bath on a Friday evening; I'd subscribe again if they reprinted "Albert, The Experimental Rat", a subversive cartoon strip (AFAIR) by the sadly-deceased David Austin; or indeed, if they reprinted the strip they ran before that about a dangerously inept government research establishment called -- what was it -- Grimbledon Down? Great stuff!

A few years back, a bathroom renovation produced a bigger bath, so I switched to The New Yorker and go wrinkly reading that instead.

EDIT: Jeez, this thread has spun way off-topic -- are some people posting with beer on board? Why not spin off one about science/atheism, and leave the rest to answer Noel's question?

.

adamd164

New Scientist is a popular science magazine, yes. You won't find journal-type technical terms. Some articles might be tougher to follow than others, depending on your level of knowledge on a given topic. Overall, it is decent and I would recommend it.

Fanny Cradock

adamd164 wrote: »

I can't honestly say that my knowledge of science has led to my atheism -- more, it has reinforced it.

And the same can be said of the Christian scientists that I know (or know of). Still, we digress...

Dave!

robindch wrote: »

I used to subscribe to the easily-accessible NS some years ago, generally tucking in while soaking in a bath on a Friday evening; I'd subscribe again if they reprinted "Albert, The Experimental Rat", a subversive cartoon strip (AFAIR) by the sadly-deceased David Austin; or indeed, if they reprinted the strip they ran before that about a dangerously inept government research establishment called -- what was it -- Grimbledon Down? Great stuff!

A few years back, a bathroom renovation produced a bigger bath, so I switched to The New Yorker and go wrinkly reading that instead.

That post contained the word 'bath' way too many times!

adamd164

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And the same can be said of the Christian scientists that I know (or know of). Still, we digress...

Sorry, that should read "has NOT led, but has reinforced".

Scofflaw

Yes, have it on subscription for the last...oh....five years? Would recommend it to a non-scientist, although there will be a bit of a learning curve to start off with.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SQDD

It's a grand magazine, although a good half of it is adverts and jobs for postgrads, I get scientific american, much better in my opinion, it's fairly cheap if you subscribe online

monkeyfudge

I used to have a subsription... it works out a good deal cheaper but the postal system means you get issues a few weeks late or not at all some times... so I gave up on the subscription.

But I find it to be a good read when ever I pick it up..... The feedback page at the back is the best bit.

They have printed a few articles with some dodgey science in the last year or so though. But for science news they are spot on.

Dades

Noel, I think you have some good answers there (and then some!)

Going to close this thread now as it's likely to derail. If you need it reopened to reply, PM me or one of the other (C)mods. You can still use the "Thank" function of course.