I've been getting New Scientist emails for a few years now, but something has always bothered me. While any given article has its ups and downs, there seems to be a very opinionated editorial slant. I've noticed this with a slew of anti-marijuana reporting where studies a chemical imbalance caused by smoking pot led to schizophrenia. But the results, when the original text is read, is not even close to conclusive even thought the article proclaims a strong relation.
The attack on Darwin's theories seem to be more of the same slanted editorial content.
What science rag is good to read? Leave in the comments.. (Dawkins suggests Discover and SEED.)
Powered by Qumana
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment