4 ms·

The OP is upset about the following opinion column published on Scientific American, titled "The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson -- We must reckon with his a

by cs702 5y ago

The OP is upset about the following opinion column published on Scientific American, titled "The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson -- We must reckon with his and other scientists’ racist ideas if we want an equitable future:" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... That opinion column is essentially evidence-free. It's main point is that it is dangerous and therefore "wrong" to think, as E. O. Wilson did, that differences among human beings can be explained in part by genetic inheritance and other biological mechanisms, regardless of evidence. Keep in mind: Most biologists think, as E. O. Wilson clearly did, that differences among human beings can also be explained in part by family dynamics, societal contexts, economic incentives, institutional structures, and other cultural mechanisms. I wouldn't have expected to see this on Scientific American.

krsrhe 5y ago
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
SciAm has been going down hill. I was about to restart my subscription years ago and decided to look through some free issue or some such. There was another “woke” opinion column or article.
jdkee 5y ago
As a reader of the magazine for the past 35 years or so, Scientific American, the print publication, has devolved into what Popular Science was about 20 years ago. Sensationalist headlines, writing geared towards a much lower reading comprehension level and the introduction of politics and opinion in various articles. A sad state of affairs for a once great publication, unfortunately. However, the mantle has been taken up by online publications such as Quanta, Aeon, Edge and Nautilus, as well as various science authors on Medium and Substack.
- kbelder 5y ago
  When I was about 13 or so, my father brought home a foot-tall stack of Scientific American issues. He was a logger, but knew I was interested in science. This would have been mid-80s. I read each of those, cover-to-cover, so many times. Barely understanding anything the first time; slowly increasing my comprehension over the months and years. Writing programs in BASIC on my C64 to recreate fractals, or simulate evolutionary processes. It really affected my life profoundly. I say all that to just emphasize how heartbreaking it is to see what a trash magazine SA is now. In print since the middle of the 19th century, and ruined just in the last 10-15 years. It's a true loss.
quinnjh 5y ago
I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point? To pull from OPs url, evolution is true. This could suggest that true is not on one side of the "classical science is a blameless objective virgin" and "classical science is an evil villain" and is instead a third position that integrates the awareness of biological and social processes we are currently afforded and keeps pressing on... " No but " vs " yes and "
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  If anything it's nostalgic. The old magazines were great since as far as I know there was little in the way of popular science writing that wasn't sensationalised headlines and bad writing. They did a good job of explaining hard science in a relatable way so that you could go any find out more if you wanted to. For whatever reason this article about coffee is still freely available: http://poplab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Illy-ComplexityCoffee-sciam02.pdf http://poplab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Illy-ComplexityCoffee-sciam0... Not a hard read, accurate, references at the bottom for more reading. Even some interesting graphs! The original article in the OP is here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... Seriously, what's up with accusing someone of racism and then not pointing to any specific evidence and lumping Gregor Mendel, a friar whose seminal work was on peas, into the mix? What?
  - quinnjh 5y ago
    Excellent point! I think id like to reiterate my "yes and" stance- your critique of what is lacking doesnt dismiss , it acknowledges the claims but asks for more of a proof. I think thats good rigor.
    - dnissley 5y ago
      This is all well and good, but how does one deal with the reality of Brandolini's law? At what point are we allowed to say "this is a bad faith effort, and I reserve my right to dismiss it on those grounds -- to hell with this nonsense". If we never stand up and say that, it seems to me we are risking the cultural foundations of society for the sake of what? Rhetorical purity? As if nothing else was at stake?!

by cs702 5y ago

krsrhe 5y ago

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago

SciAm has been going down hill. I was about to restart my subscription years ago and decided to look through some free issue or some such. There was another “woke” opinion column or article.

jdkee 5y ago

As a reader of the magazine for the past 35 years or so, Scientific American, the print publication, has devolved into what Popular Science was about 20 years ago. Sensationalist headlines, writing geared towards a much lower reading comprehension level and the introduction of politics and opinion in various articles. A sad state of affairs for a once great publication, unfortunately. However, the mantle has been taken up by online publications such as Quanta, Aeon, Edge and Nautilus, as well as various science authors on Medium and Substack.

kbelder 5y ago
When I was about 13 or so, my father brought home a foot-tall stack of Scientific American issues. He was a logger, but knew I was interested in science. This would have been mid-80s. I read each of those, cover-to-cover, so many times. Barely understanding anything the first time; slowly increasing my comprehension over the months and years. Writing programs in BASIC on my C64 to recreate fractals, or simulate evolutionary processes. It really affected my life profoundly. I say all that to just emphasize how heartbreaking it is to see what a trash magazine SA is now. In print since the middle of the 19th century, and ruined just in the last 10-15 years. It's a true loss.

quinnjh 5y ago

I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point? To pull from OPs url, evolution is true. This could suggest that true is not on one side of the "classical science is a blameless objective virgin" and "classical science is an evil villain" and is instead a third position that integrates the awareness of biological and social processes we are currently afforded and keeps pressing on... " No but " vs " yes and "

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
If anything it's nostalgic. The old magazines were great since as far as I know there was little in the way of popular science writing that wasn't sensationalised headlines and bad writing. They did a good job of explaining hard science in a relatable way so that you could go any find out more if you wanted to. For whatever reason this article about coffee is still freely available: http://poplab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Illy-ComplexityCoffee-sciam02.pdf http://poplab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Illy-ComplexityCoffee-sciam0... Not a hard read, accurate, references at the bottom for more reading. Even some interesting graphs! The original article in the OP is here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... Seriously, what's up with accusing someone of racism and then not pointing to any specific evidence and lumping Gregor Mendel, a friar whose seminal work was on peas, into the mix? What?
- quinnjh 5y ago
  Excellent point! I think id like to reiterate my "yes and" stance- your critique of what is lacking doesnt dismiss , it acknowledges the claims but asks for more of a proof. I think thats good rigor.
  - dnissley 5y ago
    This is all well and good, but how does one deal with the reality of Brandolini's law? At what point are we allowed to say "this is a bad faith effort, and I reserve my right to dismiss it on those grounds -- to hell with this nonsense". If we never stand up and say that, it seems to me we are risking the cultural foundations of society for the sake of what? Rhetorical purity? As if nothing else was at stake?!