4 ms·
The SciAm article blows my mind. Seven occurrences of the word 'problematic' in 11 paragraphs. Reminded of their reading of a (fiction) Wilson book decades ago
by pwdisswordfish9 5y ago
The SciAm article blows my mind. Seven occurrences of the word 'problematic' in 11 paragraphs.
Reminded of their reading of a (fiction) Wilson book decades ago, and inspired by something else, the author wrote essentially a three-message Twitter thread, tacked on a few decorative sentences, and was published. Next to no research, no review of the literature, no consultation with relevant scholars. A bit like this comment, but given the blessing of a national science magazine.
Further examination reveals the SciAm article's author had a previous publication in SciAm on a public health topic. Can someone use "nepotism" in a sentence?
- low_tech_love 5y agoThe thing that really bothers me is how little she actually discussed of Wilson's work. It feels like she read a few paragraphs on the more polemical aspects of his work and decided "yep, sounds racist, my chance to shine".
- throwoutway 5y agoThat’s generally how things go. No debate, just condemnation and repeating the same talking points and labels— “He is a racist!” Or “she uses hate speech!” Without any discussion of the controversy. Smear campaigns spread as wild as misinformation. Oh yes, that is BECAUSE they’re both misinformation!
- bmitc 5y agoI feel that's the most likely case, using his death as a cheap way to advance a pre-existing agenda. It was really weird how the article slams E.O. Wilson but then at the same time, it's basically not even about Wilson.