Nov 19, 2021 07:07 PM
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/11/1...-american/
EXCERPTS (Jerry Coyne): I’ve written about a dozen posts calling out Scientific American for its fulminating wokeness (give me another word if you don’t like that one), in particular its use of op-eds to discuss and promote woke ideological views that have little or nothing to do with science. A lot of readers here have canceled their subscriptions, but that hasn’t stopped Editor-in-Chief Laura Helmuth from subverting what was once the premier popular science magazine in America, turning it into a “progressive” political mouthpiece whose “real science” article get lamer and lamer.
Michael Shermer has personal experience of this, as he wrote over 200 columns for the magazine, eventually parting ways because the editors didn’t like the messages of some of his columns. He recounts this, and makes two other points, in his longish column at his new Substack site, “Skeptic“...
[...] It’s a tripartite column, making three points.
1.) The magazine has published a lot of woke and relatively nonscientific op-eds over the past few years...
[...] 2.) Despite the magazine’s claims, inequities in areas or professions are not prima facie evidence for bigotry, racism, or bias...
[...] 3.) Shermer was eventually booted from the magazine, ending his column, because he adduced facts and explanations that the woke editors didn’t like... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -
RELATED: Scientific American again posting nonscientific political editorials
EXCERPTS (Jerry Coyne): I’ve written about a dozen posts calling out Scientific American for its fulminating wokeness (give me another word if you don’t like that one), in particular its use of op-eds to discuss and promote woke ideological views that have little or nothing to do with science. A lot of readers here have canceled their subscriptions, but that hasn’t stopped Editor-in-Chief Laura Helmuth from subverting what was once the premier popular science magazine in America, turning it into a “progressive” political mouthpiece whose “real science” article get lamer and lamer.
Michael Shermer has personal experience of this, as he wrote over 200 columns for the magazine, eventually parting ways because the editors didn’t like the messages of some of his columns. He recounts this, and makes two other points, in his longish column at his new Substack site, “Skeptic“...
[...] It’s a tripartite column, making three points.
1.) The magazine has published a lot of woke and relatively nonscientific op-eds over the past few years...
[...] 2.) Despite the magazine’s claims, inequities in areas or professions are not prima facie evidence for bigotry, racism, or bias...
[...] 3.) Shermer was eventually booted from the magazine, ending his column, because he adduced facts and explanations that the woke editors didn’t like... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -
RELATED: Scientific American again posting nonscientific political editorials