We love Wired. We looked forward to the launch of the Uk edition for months, and it hasn't disappointed. My favourite article so far - 'Collapse', from the last issue. Scary. Especially the sign-off....
One question though.
Baroness Susan Greenfield?
Seriously, why her? You're a technology magazine. Ok, so maybe you need dissenting voices, a bit of balance, but this is the woman who blames computers for obesity, social networking for neurological problems in children and, in her latest article, claims the credit crunch was caused by video games. Even now she's probably working on a piece linking the rise of twitter to the MP expenses scandal.
These sorts of views we expect in the Daily Mail (who leap on each ludicrous pronouncement she makes as proof positive that the country's going to the dogs).
But not in Wired.
Remember all those people who said that the printing press would make us intellectually lazy? Well, she's the 21st century equivalent of them.
I'm as much opposed to technological boosterism as the next man, but this woman's half-baked, ill considered and poorly thought through generalisations really, really piss me off. I'm not going to spend time here debunking her nonsense, as it's been done much more effectively and proficiently than I ever could. (Ben Golacre is particularly scathing).
What's particularly galling is that she's a credentialled scientist, which carries weight. The problem, of course, is that she's not doing any science.
Of course, scientists hypothesise, that's part of the job description, but then, and this is the 'science-y' part, they collect data that proves or disproves their theories. Without this last bit, you're not doing any science. You're just making shit up.
Please stop.
-- Toby
Comments