4 ms·

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.

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?!
    - quinnjh 5y ago
      Risking the cultural foundation? To admit that people in the past acted with racial bias? Really? To me that is literally cultural fragility. To fail to depart from the purity of the past myth you cling to suggests you lack the resilience to embrace the totality of what actually was. Not saying you dont have a point- not saying we toss it all or slander everyone as evil- im saying we reckon with the complexity - the grey space between 0 and 1 if we want to actually realize the founding fathers very noble ideals. I dont think this article made a very good attempt at it , and i think the previous comments pointing out what was lacking in relation to other "good" articles was the sort of "yes and" im referring to. Though since you have no interest in rhetorical purity i should probably take your advice and dismiss the comment entirely as not being "in good faith" , right coach? ;p
evv555 5y ago
>I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point? No it doesn't seem that way. Postmodern crowd has been calling evolutionary biologists/psychologists "problematic"/racist/whatever for decades. It's one of the main narratives of the original "culture wars" in the 80's/90's. The "problem" is postmodernists see humans as purely social constructions and any other narratives on human nature as power plays. This is not an integrative "yes and" perspective but the usual dismissal through "deconstruction" you see used by this crowd.
- quinnjh 5y ago
  Decomposition and composition are both required in a transform

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?!
  - quinnjh 5y ago
    Risking the cultural foundation? To admit that people in the past acted with racial bias? Really? To me that is literally cultural fragility. To fail to depart from the purity of the past myth you cling to suggests you lack the resilience to embrace the totality of what actually was. Not saying you dont have a point- not saying we toss it all or slander everyone as evil- im saying we reckon with the complexity - the grey space between 0 and 1 if we want to actually realize the founding fathers very noble ideals. I dont think this article made a very good attempt at it , and i think the previous comments pointing out what was lacking in relation to other "good" articles was the sort of "yes and" im referring to. Though since you have no interest in rhetorical purity i should probably take your advice and dismiss the comment entirely as not being "in good faith" , right coach? ;p

evv555 5y ago

>I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point? No it doesn't seem that way. Postmodern crowd has been calling evolutionary biologists/psychologists "problematic"/racist/whatever for decades. It's one of the main narratives of the original "culture wars" in the 80's/90's. The "problem" is postmodernists see humans as purely social constructions and any other narratives on human nature as power plays. This is not an integrative "yes and" perspective but the usual dismissal through "deconstruction" you see used by this crowd.

quinnjh 5y ago
Decomposition and composition are both required in a transform