maru dubshinki wrote:
On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Scientific American generally gives far more references than most other science magazines I can think of (Discover is generally on or below SA's par, and Science News is definitely way below)
I only occasionally pick up Discover, but I noticed that about the last one that I got. Of course, no one's mentioning Popular Science. :-) It has progressed a long way downhill since its early days in the 19th century when it had some very interesting feature articles. In that same period Scientific American was a weekly which put great emphasis on the material that was going through the US Patent Office.
Ec