In defense of science.
Given your readership, I was kind of expecting an editorial like yours. Thanks for that. It means a lot to me.
I thought I detected a whiff of politics, a mention of "fake news," in the editorial of May's issue. If Sky & Telescope goes political, this 30-year subscriber will drop you like a hot potato. It is that simple. I used to subscribe to both S&T and Astronomy magazines. But when Astronomy got snarky and political back in the '90s, I canceled my subscription and haven't looked back. Mr. Tyson should keep his opinions to himself. Stay focused on astronomy, okay?
Colorado Springs, Colorado
While I always enjoy reading Peter Tyson's monthly editorials, the one about fake news and the scientific method was spot on. I was mesmerized by it. You expressed thoughts that Wendee and I have been thinking for well over a year now. And you even managed to include an appropriate comment by Thoreau, one of my favorite writers. So keep it going. S&T has made great leaps forward with you as its editor.
David H. Levy
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a noble aspiration. But your publication is far from living up to it, and you could start improving by looking in the mirror. Your pages repeatedly assert that astronomers have "deduced" what goes on inside peculiar stars, black holes, Martian history, and so on, whereas in fact they have come up with explanations that are consistent with most of the observed facts and appear superior to competing explanations. But who's to say that a better explanation might not come along, or that further observations might support conflicting theories?
Astronomers rarely deduce or produce anything incontrovertible. Dark matter and dark energy are not incontrovertible truths. They are ad hoc explanations designed to cover up holes in modern cosmology big enough to drive a galaxy through. Yet for some reason your pages have never pointed that out. You can do better.
"Monica Young replies: Multiple, independent lines of evidence point to the existence of dark matter, and these have led scientists to take it very seriously since the 1970s--seriously enough to spend millions (if not billions) of funding dollars on researching its nature. That said, science doesn't prove ideas true--it can only prove ideas false. And any cosmologist worth his or her salt would agree that dark matter might yet be proven false. In these pages, we attempt to present research in such terms, noting when particular searches have failed and therefore to what extent they have narrowed the parameter space for dark matter's existence.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||FROM OUR READERS|
|Author:||Swanson, Michael; Rasparini, Marcello; Mason, Darrell; Levy, David H.; Hobbs, Jesse|
|Publication:||Sky & Telescope|
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Date:||Aug 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Dark matter matters.|
|Next Article:||Eclipse-day finderscope fix.|