3 ms·
I definitely have been reading a lot more from alternative sources such as the ones you mentioned. I also would say that the democratization of journalism is re
by throwawaysea 5y ago
I definitely have been reading a lot more from alternative sources such as the ones you mentioned. I also would say that the democratization of journalism is really important today because of the politicization of so many institutions, including virtually all traditional media outlets like Scientific American. The threat to heterodox thinking isn’t especially new either - Quillette recently reposted an interview of E.O. Wilson from 2009 by Alice Dreger that feels prescient in its coverage of the social/political dynamics that we see continuing today and underpinning recent hit pieces written about Wilson (https://quillette.com/2021/12/29/speaking-with-e-o-wilson/ https://quillette.com/2021/12/29/speaking-with-e-o-wilson/).
- chiefalchemist 5y ago> of journalism is really important today because of the politicization of so many institutions, including virtually all traditional media outlets like Scientific American. Yes and no. Yes, many of these formerly prestigious publications have declined. No, they no longer qualify for the honor of being called journalists. Words matter. We have to stop rewarding bad behaviour.
- alisonkisk 5y agoThe SA article was terribly written and argued, but Wilson's own words in that interview greatly increased my sympathy for Wilson's critics who were suspicious of sociobiology. Wilson severely underplayed the connection between sociobiology and eugenics and Nazism that came before. "I'm just doing science" is a weak defense when the science is something so adjacent to what had just recently been used to murder 10million people.
- intrasight 5y agoYou can and should be suspicious of any science. But you should not claim that science murdered 10 million people. A truly evil regime murdered those people.