Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Aaronson: demise of Scientific American + Richard Dawkins on race & sex controversy

#1
C C Offline
Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary (Richard Dawkins)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11535-...l#pid48345


The demise of Scientific American: Guest post by Ashutosh Jogalekar
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202

(INTRO) Scott's foreword: One week ago, E. O. Wilson—the legendary naturalist and conservationist, and man who was universally acknowledged to know more about ants than anyone else in human history—passed away at age 92. A mere three days later, Scientific American—or more precisely, the zombie clickbait rag that now flaunts that name—published a shameful hit-piece, smearing Wilson for his “racist ideas” without, incredibly, so much as a single quote from Wilson, or any other attempt to substantiate its libel (see also this response by Jerry Coyne). SciAm‘s Pravda-like attack included the following extraordinary sentence, which I thought worthy of Alan Sokal’s Social Text hoax:

"The so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against."

There are intellectually honest people who don’t know what the normal distribution is. There are no intellectually honest people who, not knowing what it is, figure that it must be something racist.

On Twitter, Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief now running SciAm into the ground, described her magazine’s calumny against Wilson as “insightful” (the replies, including from Richard Dawkins, are fun to read). I suppose it was as “insightful” as SciAm‘s disgraceful attack last year on Eric Lander, President Biden’s ultra-competent science advisor and a leader in the war on COVID, for … being a white male, which appears to have been E. O. Wilson’s crime as well. (Think I must be misrepresenting the “critique” of Lander? Read it!)

Anyway, in response to Scientific American‘s libel of Wilson, I wrote on my Facebook that I’ll no longer agree to write for or be interviewed by them (you can read my old stuff free of charge here or here), unless and until there’s a complete change of editorial direction. I encourage all other scientists to commit likewise, thereby making it common knowledge that the entity that now calls itself “Scientific American” bears the same relation to the legendary home of Martin Gardner as does a corpse to a living being. Fortunately, there are high-quality online venues (e.g., Quanta) that partly fill the role that Scientific American abdicated.

After reading my Facebook post, my friend Ashutosh Jogalekar was inspired to post an essay of his own. Ashutosh used to write regularly for Scientific American, until he was fired seven years ago over a column in which he advocated acknowledging Richard Feynman’s flaws, including his arrogance and casual sexism, but also understanding those flaws within the context of Feynman’s whole life, including the tragic death of his first wife Arlene. (Yes, that was really it! Read the piece!) Below, I’m sharing Ashutosh’s moving essay about E. O. Wilson with Ashutosh’s very generous permission. —Scott Aaronson

Guest Post by Ashutosh Jogalekar

As some know, I was “fired” from Scientific American in 2014 for three “controversial” posts (among 200 that I had written for the magazine). When I parted from the magazine I chalked up my departure to an unfortunate misunderstanding more than anything else. I still respected some of the writers at the publication, and while I wore my separation as a badge of honor and in retrospect realized its liberating utility in enabling me to greatly expand my topical range, I occasionally still felt bad and wished things had gone differently.

No more. Now the magazine has done me a great favor by allowing me to wipe the slate of my conscience clean. What happened seven years ago was not just a misunderstanding but clearly one of many first warning signs of a calamitous slide into a decidedly unscientific, irrational and ideology-ridden universe of woke extremism... (MORE - details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Scientific American proposes policing the language of astronomy C C 1 81 Jan 10, 2024 04:09 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  Article A 27,000-year-old pyramid? Controversy hits an extraordinary archaeological claim. C C 0 65 Nov 29, 2023 05:47 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article "Scientific American" is back to distorting the facts to buttress its ideology C C 1 92 Oct 26, 2023 11:48 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article My letter to the "Washington Post" on race + SC research damaged by retractions C C 0 81 Oct 23, 2023 05:09 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Once again, Scientific American ideology distorts science: "Animal sex is not binary" C C 0 56 May 19, 2023 02:05 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Why race-based health care is bad medicine: from BiDil to kidney transplants C C 0 62 Mar 30, 2023 05:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  AI was author of research paper (controversy) + That viral screed against peer review C C 1 101 Jan 25, 2023 09:07 AM
Last Post: confused2
  A Transgender Controversy C C 4 285 Dec 22, 2022 07:27 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Scientific American finds SETI racist & colonialist + Fat acceptance movement (Maher) C C 2 139 Aug 14, 2022 11:01 PM
Last Post: Syne
  'Woke' Scientific American goes anti-GMO + SciAm's hit job on E.O. Wilson C C 1 87 Jan 1, 2022 02:18 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)