5 ms·

Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.

barry-cotter 5y ago
If a scientific periodical had an article written by a flat earther that would be bad. If there was a torrent of criticism and the editor defended the article with vigour you would write off the entire periodical. The article discussed above is just as bad as flat earth, but with different polital valence.
bmitc 5y ago
Really? Because the fact that this article was published seems to showcase evidence for a systemic problem. How did this article get approved? I mean, it's linking to a study that makes racial and sexist judgements based off of ... general relativity? Edit: I've read the full article and it is borderline incoherent. I have no idea what in the world she is talking about or how it even remotely relates to E.O. Wilson, much less why in the world they would post this mere days after his death. The article actually barely mentions Wilson other than slandering him in the sentences it does and provides no references to his work or anything that substantiates, well, anything the author is arguing for or against. Yet, the author takes the time to reference near lunacy. The article ends with: > The early work of Venter and Collins was foundational to my dissertation, which examined tumor markers of ovarian cancer. I spent time during my training at the NIH learning from these iconic clinicians and scholars and had occasion to meet and question both of them. As a person who uses science as one of many tools to understand the world, it is important to remain curious in our work. Creative minds should not be resistant to change when rigorous new data are presented. How we engage with old racist ideas is no exception. What does that have to do with anything this article was supposably about? It makes no sense. Yet, someone (multiple people?) approved this article.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  As far as the veracity of Medium articles go, this is from the Wikipedia page describing Medium: The platform is an example of social journalism, having a hybrid collection of amateur and professional people and publications, or exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium,[3] and is regularly regarded as a blog host. I tend to take things I read on that website with a grain of salt.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    What does Medium have to do with anything I wrote?
    - ribs 5y ago
      Medium is where the piece we’re talking about was posted - “The Shameful Decline…”. While the article in SA does seem appalling, I don’t see this single article’s publication as justification for this broad indictment of SA. It’s concerning, yes. But it’s ONE ARTICLE, and that’s all the piece talks about. OP may well be right, but they haven’t shown it by the citing of ONE ARTICLE.
      - bmitc 5y ago
        I was not and am not commenting on the Medium article. I was referring to the Scientific American article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... For me, it's enough to think something is seriously wrong there at Scientific American. The more I think about it, the more the article makes little sense to me. I can't even understand what it has to do with E.O. Wilson. The timing of the article would imply that the article was written in just a couple of days by a recurring author. So they used the death of a notable scientist to push some agenda.
        maxlybbert 5y ago
        It’s common for a media company to have a file and even a pre-written obituary for famous people. That way there’s no need to cobble together an obituary hours after getting word that, say, Steve Jobs has died. I take it that Scientific American didn’t have a pre-written obituary for E.O. Wilson.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- in3d 5y ago
  Not only was it simply published as an op-ed but Scientific American's editor-in-chief publicly praised this piece on Twitter, calling it insightful, and retweeted the author and another tweet praising it. So unfortunately we can expect Sci Am to continue on this downward trajectory.
davesque 5y ago
Sure, although it sounds like there's been a pretty strong trend in this direction at SA for a while. The Scott Aaronson blog that people have linked from other places in this thread (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202) says as much. Dr. Aaronson is an extremely even tempered and objective thinker. If he says there's an issue and goes so far as to guest publish a former writer sounding the alarm on SA, I'm inclined to believe there's a fire underneath this smoke.
selimthegrim 5y ago
Their blogs where they interview a mathematician are still good.
garyrob 5y ago
For years and years, I used to be very excited every time SA arrived in my mailbox. But over time, it dumbed itself down, with great consistency, to the point that it's unbearable. I stopped subscribing long ago.
reaperducer 5y ago
Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical. In my estimation, it's become so shallow that i don't even bother following links to it from HN anymore. Whenever i see an entry in HN, i just move on.
ars 5y ago
No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad. I can even pinpoint when they passed the road of no return - it's when they mixed politics with science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-... and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ... here. That was when I realized they didn't care about actual science, they cared about appearance. The old scientific american would have never written an article intended to make people act a certain way by changing the name of things.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  You can't really argue about backing anyone other than Trump, his presidency was a cess pool and almost ended the US as the oldest democracy in the world. They were just calling out fascism for what it is. There will always be a place for that in any magazine.
  - ars 5y ago
    That just makes it even worse - why do they even bother backing his opponent in that case? Why do they feel a need to do this? I [used to] read it for science, not politics.

If a scientific periodical had an article written by a flat earther that would be bad. If there was a torrent of criticism and the editor defended the article with vigour you would write off the entire periodical. The article discussed above is just as bad as flat earth, but with different polital valence.

bmitc 5y ago

Really? Because the fact that this article was published seems to showcase evidence for a systemic problem. How did this article get approved? I mean, it's linking to a study that makes racial and sexist judgements based off of ... general relativity? Edit: I've read the full article and it is borderline incoherent. I have no idea what in the world she is talking about or how it even remotely relates to E.O. Wilson, much less why in the world they would post this mere days after his death. The article actually barely mentions Wilson other than slandering him in the sentences it does and provides no references to his work or anything that substantiates, well, anything the author is arguing for or against. Yet, the author takes the time to reference near lunacy. The article ends with: > The early work of Venter and Collins was foundational to my dissertation, which examined tumor markers of ovarian cancer. I spent time during my training at the NIH learning from these iconic clinicians and scholars and had occasion to meet and question both of them. As a person who uses science as one of many tools to understand the world, it is important to remain curious in our work. Creative minds should not be resistant to change when rigorous new data are presented. How we engage with old racist ideas is no exception. What does that have to do with anything this article was supposably about? It makes no sense. Yet, someone (multiple people?) approved this article.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
As far as the veracity of Medium articles go, this is from the Wikipedia page describing Medium: The platform is an example of social journalism, having a hybrid collection of amateur and professional people and publications, or exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium,[3] and is regularly regarded as a blog host. I tend to take things I read on that website with a grain of salt.
- bmitc 5y ago
  What does Medium have to do with anything I wrote?
  - ribs 5y ago
    Medium is where the piece we’re talking about was posted - “The Shameful Decline…”. While the article in SA does seem appalling, I don’t see this single article’s publication as justification for this broad indictment of SA. It’s concerning, yes. But it’s ONE ARTICLE, and that’s all the piece talks about. OP may well be right, but they haven’t shown it by the citing of ONE ARTICLE.
    - bmitc 5y ago
      I was not and am not commenting on the Medium article. I was referring to the Scientific American article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... For me, it's enough to think something is seriously wrong there at Scientific American. The more I think about it, the more the article makes little sense to me. I can't even understand what it has to do with E.O. Wilson. The timing of the article would imply that the article was written in just a couple of days by a recurring author. So they used the death of a notable scientist to push some agenda.
      - maxlybbert 5y ago
        It’s common for a media company to have a file and even a pre-written obituary for famous people. That way there’s no need to cobble together an obituary hours after getting word that, say, Steve Jobs has died. I take it that Scientific American didn’t have a pre-written obituary for E.O. Wilson.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
in3d 5y ago
Not only was it simply published as an op-ed but Scientific American's editor-in-chief publicly praised this piece on Twitter, calling it insightful, and retweeted the author and another tweet praising it. So unfortunately we can expect Sci Am to continue on this downward trajectory.

davesque 5y ago

Sure, although it sounds like there's been a pretty strong trend in this direction at SA for a while. The Scott Aaronson blog that people have linked from other places in this thread (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202) says as much. Dr. Aaronson is an extremely even tempered and objective thinker. If he says there's an issue and goes so far as to guest publish a former writer sounding the alarm on SA, I'm inclined to believe there's a fire underneath this smoke.

selimthegrim 5y ago

Their blogs where they interview a mathematician are still good.

garyrob 5y ago

For years and years, I used to be very excited every time SA arrived in my mailbox. But over time, it dumbed itself down, with great consistency, to the point that it's unbearable. I stopped subscribing long ago.

reaperducer 5y ago

Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical. In my estimation, it's become so shallow that i don't even bother following links to it from HN anymore. Whenever i see an entry in HN, i just move on.

ars 5y ago

No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad. I can even pinpoint when they passed the road of no return - it's when they mixed politics with science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-... and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ... here. That was when I realized they didn't care about actual science, they cared about appearance. The old scientific american would have never written an article intended to make people act a certain way by changing the name of things.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
You can't really argue about backing anyone other than Trump, his presidency was a cess pool and almost ended the US as the oldest democracy in the world. They were just calling out fascism for what it is. There will always be a place for that in any magazine.
- ars 5y ago
  That just makes it even worse - why do they even bother backing his opponent in that case? Why do they feel a need to do this? I [used to] read it for science, not politics.