On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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