I was a subscriber to "Scientific American" for 41 years, up until 2021. I canceled my subscription after the magazine became nothing more than a propaganda rag for the radical left. The final straw came when a regular columnist stated that "There needs to be fewer white males reading Scientific American." I followed the columnist's suggestion.
you need to to cancel anti-woke too as woke was a distraction when antiwoke bobheads were installed in place, claiming to be saviors and chosen ones. NOOT.
I wasn't a subscriber for nearly as long, but unsubbed about the same time. They should've just renamed themselves, "Minitrue Doubleplus Goodthinking Oceanian."
Such as ??? Cynical misanthropic “both sides” liberal quotes help nobody. You mean like how absurd it is to accept an orange felon as a “non-absurd” leader of our democracy? What exactly do you mean there Voltaire? Less culture war. More economic class analysis and class consciousness.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said "They fired her, didn't they?" Bill Maher said "But they published this crap!" which is the most important thing. The fact that such a person could rise to editor-in-chief of Scientific American says it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Unfortunately, our most important institutions have been captured by a combination of rad-ik-ul l e f t i s t s & kor-rupt neo-lib-erals who are selling out everything to the BlackRock corporate elites.
We're decades into the problem of giving PhDs to people who do not deserve them. Almost all PhDs now are just normal average people who don't have the slightest inkling of what it means to be a doctor of philosophy.
Unfortunately , these titles are given for political views not scientific contribution. Soon the same will happen with Nobel praises. Barack Hussein Obama got one for archiving nothing, bowing down to a Muslim dictator, before he had even started doing anything. What a sham world we got ourselves into.
A Ph.D used to separate the men from the boys. A Ph.D was far far more difficult than completing a Masters degree, which all Ph.D students got along the way. Most recently, Universities and Colleges have reduced the requirements for the Ph.D. In Electrical Engineering 30 years ago, you had to be expert in 3 major sub fields. The Ph.D often took 4 to 7 years of full time work to complete. Today, many universities and colleges have reduced the requirement to a single sub-field, and most candidates are completing their work in 2 to 3 years. Basically, they have reduced the Ph.D curriculum and academic requirements to simply another Master's Degree. It's become all about the money to colleges. They don't care that they have dumbed down the status of the Ph.D, as long as they make more money per student since the college's costs are now much less.
@@manojudd8638 I agree with all of that, and I would like to demand even more. When Plato defined the term "philosophy" he meant to capture an unrelenting love and hunger for all of knowledge ("when you love something, do you love it in part, or in whole?"). Knowledge he meant, not wisdom. A PhD is supposed to be a person with a lifelong insatiable curiosity for all parts of learning, the ability to master any domain of knowledge. The specialization in a particular subfield is meant to certify that they could equally well learn any field they chose. That's specifically why the term "philosophy" is used for all PhDs.
Scientific American changed my life in high school and into college. A couple of years ago, when my son was in the 8th grade, I bought him a subscription remembering how much it taught me. When the first issue came he brought it to me asking why on earth I got this for him. When I skimmed through the issue we tossed it in the trash.
It is probably a good idea for you to review your son’s text books and homework assignments as I can guarantee you the same agenda is in his school. Or don’t. It is best to homeschool folks.
I got a subscription to Scientific American in my mid-teens around 1965. It had a considerable and positive influence on my life. However, around 1980, it seemed to be getting thinner, so I only occasionally bought it. I don't think I've read an issue in about 30 years. I am very disappointed to see that it is now total garbage.
Same here; I subscribed ‘71 to ‘81 and proudly archived the issues under gold-stamped buckram bindings. By ‘81 the issues thinned out and the Science And The Citizen columns had migrated leftward. Martin Gardner’s column vanished. What has happened since though is appalling. No science-minded person should come within a mile of such content. What a shame.
Agree, Nat Geo does not even come close to hiring the types of professionals that they used to. It's just a bunch of work-from-home journalists, that read other leftists news, talk to a few "experts" over the phone, and then regurgitate the same nonsense as what was already published by some other leftists. Journalism and news is all a race to the bottom right now. There is no money to support the types of quality journalism needed to create an in-depth, original work, because that would require paying to send real seasoned researchers to far corners of the earth to dig for a real scoop. That busienss model is dead.
I'm stunned. The Lancet used to be noted for the rigor of its editorial team. Having a paper accepted for publication was a coup in the medical research field. It put the individual or team on the map.
I have not read Scientific American for many years. I had no idea they were publishing these garbage, woke articles. Excellent essay by Michael Shermer.
October's cover: How to go back to the moon. The science of empathy. A chickadee mystery. Hope for sickle cell disease. November's cover: Learning from Lucy. Did dark energy change. Leap secons. The staggering success of vaccines. I do not understand all the offended posters here. I guess maybe the anti-vaxers and creationists could be triggered but why would they buy SA and come post their cancel culture here.
SciAm had become a self-styled "upscale" version of Popular Science magazine more than a quarter-century ago. Unlike PS, it has had no usefulness for even longer than that. At least one could use the pages of Popular Science for outdoor toilet wipes or to start the fire in one's wood stove, but SciAm's gloss-coat paper isn't even usable for these low purposes. Good riddance.
She knew she was, she was just too obvious and clumsy about it. Thus she was offered up as a sacrificial lamb for the “good of the party” to act as a smokescreen.
They performed their own science. The science of control and contempt. They measured how far they could go. They made it a lot further than i thought they would!
I think it should it be renamed as Dogma & Science and then the reader s can decide which article belongs to which of the two categories. I anticipate some lively discussions.
Mr Shermer: Sadly, the needle had already started moving away from objective science when SA refused to publish any criticisms of the orthodox doctrine of Global Warming.
Which part exactly do you think is wrong about the science of global warming? It seems at this point it's even getting difficult seperating the science from the political activism, but I'd hold that the science is sound, while the activism sometimes run wild with it and reaches some bs conclusions.
@@steffenjensen422 SciAm published Mark Z. Jacobson's drivel claiming that an industrial civilization can be run on wind and solar power, which is a load of crap. That may not be climate science, but climate science is being used to drive this swindle which is driving energy costs up, catastrophically destroying electrical grid reliability and creating vast profits for the political cronies collecting the subsidies. Jacobson's BS was soundly criticized by a group of authors from the NAS. Jacobson's response was not another article, but to sue the folks who criticized him.
I once made a quiet point on a podcasting professor that universities were increasingly prescriptive in telling students what they should think. I was met with a stream of insults and foul-mouthed invective. It's odd how many intellectuals(?) think that abusing those they disagree with is appropriate or helpful, as opposed to arguing lucidly.
You weren’t getting a thinking academic angry at you. You were getting a liberal activist angry at you. Liberals are an intolerant bunch. They are so intolerant they even get upset with other liberals who don’t 100% support the liberal agenda.
The posts by this lady, putatively intelligent, contained no substantial thoughts. I think I could have done it better, actually. If I was idiotic enough to think Kamala should have won, that is. I suspect she was intoxicated.
I ended my subscription to Scientific American years ago when I started reading this kind of stuff. Thank you for exposing what the journal has become.
This is the history of science in a nutshell. "Science" does not exist beyond what people are willing to accept on a personal or ideological level. This is wrong, but I see no sign of it changing. A litmus test I use is "Can I accept a truthful statment regardless of who makes it, or do I dismiss it based on whether I like someone or not?"
Similar to Mao’s cultural revolution in which history and culture were destroyed then replaced with Mao thought, today cultural woke warriors try to replace historical scientific and cultural knowledge with woke new thought. They seek to destroy the old and historical but if unable they will carry out subterfuge - if not that then cancel, if not that - ignore.
It's funny you should mention Mao. Why? Because for many years this Selective Marxist view has been used as a propaganda tool against the West and is still "virulent" in the East.
Anything communism and leftism touches will be gutted. IDK who said it - communism is the Islam of the modern age. The American devolution of communism is woke and identity politics.
Very good exposé of what has happened to the scientific American. Back in 2014 I stopped listening to ABC Australia for the same reason; It felt like they weren’t giving me information and letting me make up my own mind but instead they had decided what I must think. How can intelligent people become so delusional?
As someone who once was an avid reader of Scientific American but hasn't paid much attention to it for a decade, I find a lot of these opinion pieces quite shocking. When I was a physicist and later an engineer, I fully understood which of my statements was evidence based and appropriate to be spoken in that role, and what was essentially faith or opinion or cultural heritage and thus not to be spoken in a role as a scientist or engineer.
Thank you for being a sane voice. I have no idea how so many institutions have been ideologically captured but it’s deeply troubling. It’s one thing to hold progressive opinions, it’s another thing to shut down discourse as “hate” and blatantly deny objective facts to push your narrative.
I first read SA in 1970 and was awed by the knowledge it contained. Over the course of my career and raising a family, I largely lost track of it. It reappeared in my life over the past few years but I couldn’t believe how Unscientific it had become! Good god, has it been this trashy for 2 decades!?
I quit reading S.A. long ago. An editorial in S.A. blasted a book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg and Bjorn himself, and then refused to allow Bjorn to respond. I read the book. Bjorn was right; S.A. was wrong, both on the editorial, and certainly on their omissive censorship of an author. At that point I realized that I was being fed bias rather than Science. I realized that, in S.A., politics and personalities were being pushed over the process of scientific discussion. Not liking censorship, bias or their superior, but wrong, attitude, S.A. is dead to me. Science is not now, nor never will be, settled. Science is a process. It is not the "truth", it is the effort of discerning the truth.
Same. They took the approach that their job was to destroy Lomborg (we didn’t have canceling yet), not engage with and debate his actual ideas. At that point I realized I couldn’t trust anything they published.
I was a Scientific American subscriber for 50 years. Starting in 8th grade in 1966. I saw lots of changes in staff and editorial style. For 50 years, I felt like the editors respected my ability to use my brain to analyze the facts presented, and come to logical conclusions. Then 2016 occurred. Neither of the major parties bothered to put forth someone I could vote for. I voted for another party for President. Unfortunately, Scientific American decided to forego the apolitical stance that the magazine had always adhered to. And then they went even further, trying to tell their readership about one candidate's unscientific stances. I can read politics from publications that know a lot more about the nuances of politics. That is not why I read Scientific American. So I cancelled my subscription. When they chose to take sides on both subsequent elections, I knew that my decision was correct. The organization deserves to die on the vine. That no one stopped this nonsense in 2016, nor questioned the other positions being taken since then is more than enough evidence that the institution is on life support that needs to be unplugged.
Context matters here. What were the unscientific stances? I know it didn't happen but if an presidential candidate promoted phlogiston theory or phrenology and actively campaigned on these topics, it would be laughable to suggest a scientific magazine couldn't write articles on it because it's political. Dawkins is mentioned in this video, and I respect him, but he's said some pretty hardcore statements in favor of abortion that would likely deplatform him from a similar position. And have him denounces from people on the right. Musing on why mothers should abort fetuses with down syndrome is getting eerily close to eugenics.
@@coryc9040 My point is that it is okay to report stances that are unscientific, and then respect my intelligence enough to let me decide the logical course of action. The editorials became more patronizing and condescending in tone as time went on. It turns out that there are much better science journals available that don't have an editorial board that views their subscribers as idiots. I have transitioned to those sources for my information.
@@serioustoday I fail to see what is woke about not wanting to be preached to by a source that I am going to information from. My decision was already set that neither candidate was my choice in both '16 and '20. But if the editors of that rag were more interested in supporting and agenda than in doing what I paid them for, I wasn't going to waste my money on them. Their subsequent descent into anti-science positions has validated my assessment.
Wow. I was a 25 year subscriber starting in the 80s. I find the older the issue the better. I canceled because the became less rigorous over time. I’m guessing to appeal to a larger audience
I've been a reader for about 60 years. When I was a child, I remember being challenged by the rigorous scientific content of the articles. They were often written by the scientists themselves and even showed the math related to the subject. This is no longer the case. I was not only inspired to become a scientist by the magazine but I also learned a tremendous amount of good science over the years. Lately, most of the articles are written by journalists, have little depth, and are formulaic. There is little, if anything, to inspire or to learn anymore. Sadly, I have recently bid farewell to a lifelong friend and let my subscription lapse.
One can say the same about business and economics. They too have fallen to Leftist Narratives. And dont even talk about Human Resource departments in any entity. For Profit, Non Profit, Education, Corporations, Armed Forces, etc... they are about Soviet as they get.
My experience is similar, but I gave up on it (switching to American Scientist) around 2008 after SciAm became markedly more ‘popular’, less rigorous, using more stock graphics, etc. The ending of the Amateur Scientist column was a major blow, I felt.
This is one of the comments I can relate to (as opposed to all this endless discussion of "woke"). When I was in college, Scientific American articles were indeed written by the scientists who did the research. Sometimes I had to struggle a bit to understand some of the articles in say, biology or chemistry (my field is physics), but I always came away from an issue feeling I had learned something. Many years later, as a professional physicist, I co-wrote an invited article for SA in the early 2000's. I was furious when the editor changed much of the language in the piece without consulting us, in order to make it more "gee-whiz". I told the editor that I would never write anything for them again. Not long after that, the science articles were being written by science writers and editors, as opposed to the scientists themselves. I think it has now become an "airport magazine".
I was a subscriber of Scientific American for many years. I used to give out subscriptions as Christmas presents. As a career military officer I always felt the SA military themed articles were laughably left-wing. Besides that however, the publication was popularized and cheaper version of Science and Nature magazines. In the past couple of decades the magazine started being seeded with additional leftist dribble masquerading as science. It was sad after receiving much joy reading my monthly issues that I was forced to cancel my subscription. I do hope that the future holds a correction of this unfortunate trend.
I cancelled my SciAm subscription ... too expensive plus they have been letting politics overrule science for a while. I have been a more-or-less constant subscriber since the mid-1960s when I was a kid entering science fairs. Could not believe how much obvious political slant there was in recent years..... politics over science in every issue.
I stopped reading SA in the early 2000's when they labeled anyone who questioned the faulty climate models as "deniers". They became propagandists at that point and I lost interest in their magazine. As an Ecologists and Scientist by profession, I gave up on them, and it has apparenetly gotten much worse.
Never thought I’d see Lysenkoism happen in America but that was only my ignorance. As it turns out, science is quite easily co-opted by political and ideological stupidity and the only difference between Scientific American and all the others is that they aren’t sending those who disagree to actual forced labor camps in Siberia…so we have that going for us, which is nice…
@@tommyrq180 It is funny that you should mention Lysenko. He was an intellectual fraud in opposition to the "budding" science of genetics. Apparently he also wanted to promote Stalin-style, National-Socialist views on knowledge. It isn't too far away of us ending up in a "re-education camp" for demonstrating "bourgeois tendencies".
Scientific American has lost its way. It is so sad. There are still some sane intelligent educated people out here who do not subscribe to the crazy thinking that is taking over the mechanisms and publications of science. Thank you for the sane rational thinking. I have many of your books and learned a lot from them.
I encountered SA in my high school exactly 50 years ago, and I was enamoured of it. Now going through many comments, I am tempted to point out that the decline of SA, like so many other organs of the American Empire, points to the decline of the empire. Its like old age where multiple body organs deteriorate; you know its happening but no one can stop it.
Mr. Shermer: Brilliant! Thanks for the insightful thought. When I was in school (don’t ask when) Scientific American was considered on par with the Bible. How ironic - it nows thinks it is the bible.
Thank you for your honesty, integrity and courage in the face of hyper-emotional, delusional, divisive, virtue-seeking children in adult bodies who haven't a clue about freedom of speech or freedom in general, not to mention science. What the scientific community did to James Watson was yet another example of the hypocrisy and cowardice so common among today's academics.
I always thought New Scientist was always kind of in the woke camp, maybe even a little bit Marxist. And this was well before the days when SA went woke.
Two possible causes of disparity. Either unfairness exists in the system, or the individuals within the system are unequal in capability. No honesty can exist unless we are allowed to discuss the second cause. It has NOT been proven that humans are equally capable. The belief in equality is a political doctrine.
Great essay Michael. You’re one of the few sane voices of rational thought still willing to put your neck on the line and simple state the truth. It’s a shame to see these once prestigious magazines I grew up with and that inspired me to the sciences and to dream of better future fall victim to ideology and fascistic tendencies. Please keep up the fight for those of us who do not have the same platform and reach as you do.
The truth about something is far more important than someone's feelings about that thing. More and more people are saying this loudly and clearly - because our patience and tolerance has allowed those with feelings about things (such as gender) to dominate the debate. No more - Our patience is finished and our tolerance is over.
Yup I couldn't believe it when I started reading some of the political articles in scientific American. As a scientist I was disgusted. Never read it again
Very sad. I have a subscription at the office so I can put it out in the waiting room. Seemed so good to give people an alternative to People and the like... and now I'm not so sure. I remember a million years ago when this was a great journal. I hadn't realized what it had become.
When institution like scientific American publishes this garbage, it remains in the archives forever. Its reputation can thus never recover. A new publication is required.
Thank you, Michael Shermer. Even when I occasionally do not agree with him, he is always honest, straightforward, and logical in his arguments. Scientific American needs a housecleaning.
The rot at SA started with John Rennie (editor) in the early 2000's when he trashed Bjorn Lomborg's book, "Skeptical Environmentalist". Rennie was the first at SA of a breed of "science writers" who don't actually "do" science, but have the intellectual arrogance to "interpret" science for the scientifically benighted. Before Rennie, most articles were written by real scientists who actually did the "science", and used SA to explain their work to the wider public. I still treasure my collection of SA from '71 to 2000 or so. But Rennie ended SA for me, and it has been worthless ever since. The latest kerfuffle is just a continuation of more than 20-years of SA circling the drain.
Being a "skeptic" is an industry. However without good arguments, good evidence , good experiments, good observations the skeptic is simply a salesman. You probably like "Chariot of the gods" and hate "Future Shock"
@@serioustoday It was a long time ago and not worth remembering. I just didn't feel like paying for that nonsense at the time, there was plenty of it on TV. Sorry if you felt slighted, Mr. Rennie.
The woke cancer took over The Institute for Advanced Study, American Mathematical Society, American Academy of Sciences, every major award that once was a sign of distinction today became meaningless.
This showed up in my feed, I am glad that I clicked on. Thank you you for sharing your thoughts and giving voice to something that is very important for many of us. Maybe now we can begin to have honest discussions about the "science of science ".
Hello Quillette: Thank you very much for this. A couple of weeks ago I was explaining "identity politics" to a friend and I explained it as an inversion of Dr King's teachings. Have a really lovely day.
Regarding the quote from Pinker’s book, H.L. Mencken put it like this: “It is difficult to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
Thank you, sir, for an excellent expose on the demise of the once terrific Scientific American. I could not agree more. I'm a retired grad degreed Aerospace Engineer with a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems Company and started reading SA in my undergrad college library in the late 70's. But have thrown nothing but disdain its way the last 10+ years.
I once subscribed to Scientific American 30 years ago, hoping to get insightful knowledge about SCIENCE. I cancelled my subscription because the magazine was too busy being political. And I mean clearly political. Note that this was 30 years ago. It was extremely disappointing. I want journalists to give facts that I can use to be a better informed, more rational person. I don't mind changing my views based on facts. I do mind people trying to "gaslight" me.
Entirely true -- and this guy provides no corrective. He just wants different dogma. And he is cashing in on denouncing DEI in the meantime, of course. Get that buck. Oops, he mispronounced "pablum." 😂
That’s the exact thing that caused me to allow my 15 year subscription to lapse. It was not just their opposition to the “Star Wars” self defense program, SciAm also opposed new weapon systems to safeguard Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact, in the mid-80’s. That caused me to let my 15 year subscription to lapse.
I've been interested in science since I was about 12. Im now 78 and often find myself walking away from all types of scientific articles when they begin to hypothesize how their findings contribute to climate change. I believe government grants for scientific studies are a major factor in junk science.
I was given a sub to New Scientist for a year, but it soon became obvious that some of its writers had been DEI hires and the publication had been ideologically captured. This, undermined my faith in its scientific credibility, and although they kept coming to my door, I stopped reading them because of the effort needed to fact-check the articles. This was a magazine that I had, since 1970, keenly sought for decades - travelling weekly into town to buy it from the newsagents. The same with Scientific American. These two magazines kindled my interest in science, but now there is better journalism on YT, frankly.
In the late 70s, my school librarian gave me about 20 years worth of SA magazines, which probably took me about 10 years to process. Back then, they were a challenge to read and didn't involve pop science. I sure miss those magazines.
10 дней назад
As a teenager, my friend and I read back issues cover to cover and then would spend hours discussing the articles. Learned far more doing that then I did in college.
Michael Shermer is an exceptional public intellectual and an exceptional guy - he's so learned, so accomplished but still self deprecating with a warm wonderful sense of humour. His interviews are always a warm meeting of great minds, witty and conversational, that everyone, irrespective of their background can understand and find valuable while still being engaged and amused. Keep it up Shermer - if America had more ambassadors like you its reputation would be far far higher.
After you left Sci Am, I canceled my subscription and explained that I know longer trusted them to provide good scientific reporting. A year later, I got a survey and an attempt to resurrect my subscription. I responded with the same comments, and told them to stop bothering me.
Thank you for doing a great service by highlighting the monumental decline in scientific thought after SA went woke. Sadly, the same is true for ALL such businesses, institutions, and organizations, yet they lack a former insider like yourself to point it out.
Excellent summary of a fallen magazine. I was a loyal reader throughout the 70s and 80s, but then started to realize that in every article that touched on politics, the authors ALWAYS took the left-wing position. This was proof of editorial bias and I ended my subscription. Another source of outrage were editorials by editor John Rennie (1994-2009), who always had some left-wing point to make. He even told top universities to not accept any students from the state of Kansas because of the Kansas board of education's views on creation. I was disgusted to see how the left had destroyed my favorite magazine. Martin Gardener is probably rolling over in his grave,
This reminds me of something a friend of mine once said. He was a manager of a bookstore and apparently there's some kind of law that says if you are contacted by another store regarding the performance of a former employee, you cannot offer or confirm criticism of said employee - only work history. I'm not sure of the exact details regarding this law, but that was the gist of it (and also this is California). In order to get around it, managers who called him, who obviously knew about the law, would ask questions where my friend's silence or a 'no comment' would basically be affirmation of what was being asked.
What are you talking about? The government hasn’t censored anything in this video. Just because of you have free speech from the government you are still responsible for what you say? Thats like cussing out my boss on social media and then claiming free speech when I get fired.
@@pbrown0829 This disingenuous, willful obtuseness is getting really tiresome. You know exactly what they mean, because you’re not actually the clueless fucking moron you’re pretending to be. There are other forms of coercion besides being sent to the gulag, and free speech can be effectively curtailed in a plethora of ways that don’t contravene the first amendment.
I grew up reading Scientific American. It satisfied my intellectual curiosity and thirst for knowledge while helping me decide what to do later in life. Their articles were rigorous without being unapproachable, like journal papers were. It’s just sad to know that scientific rigour, not only in Scientific American, but in many aspects of the practice of Science, have been infiltrated by ideology and opinion.
As regards racial/ethnic/sex disparities in accomplishments: Assume all relevant persons are of equal potential. Then, give false accomplishments to selected groups, pander to them, insist that all their shortcomings are due to discrimination. The result will look substantially like the disparities we see today. The intent to help "marginalized" people insures that a greater percentage of them fail to live up to their potential, and since the disparity is the evidence of discrimination, the disparity caused by the pandering becomes the incentive to pander even more.
Pinker is a brilliant guy. And Shermer is a warrior fighting for what is factually true--not what is "personally" true. Thanks, Michael Shermer, for your all your work. I have been following your commentary for years.
Read almost every edition from the mid 1950s onward. Subscribed in the mid 1970s. This valuable resource that helped many budding engineers like myself has now suffered an ignominious woke/dei/SJW death. I mourn.
The 'hard' sciences, those in STEM, are not dying, and the reason the magazine failed is that it began ignoring science and scientists and catered for activists.
Nothing could be more unscientific than the science journals of our time. Publishing based on political narrative rather than an open scientific debate.
I gave up on scientific American basically back in 1995. Some of the articles are reviewed with other comparable authors denied the statement that the American was making and general their content was more of a storytelling than a scientific paper. I had tried the magazine for a long time, and it took quite a step which I also enclosed my reasons why I departed from them I would no longer recommend it to anyone.
I NEVER thought I'd see the day when I'd agree this much, on any topic, with Michael Shermer! LOL! But... I'm there. Good for you, Shermer. THIS time you're making sense to me. ~JSV
I was a subscriber to "Scientific American" for 41 years, up until 2021. I canceled my subscription after the magazine became nothing more than a propaganda rag for the radical left. The final straw came when a regular columnist stated that "There needs to be fewer white males reading Scientific American." I followed the columnist's suggestion.
you need to to cancel anti-woke too as woke was a distraction when antiwoke bobheads were installed in place, claiming to be saviors and chosen ones. NOOT.
👍
I wasn't a subscriber for nearly as long, but unsubbed about the same time. They should've just renamed themselves, "Minitrue Doubleplus Goodthinking Oceanian."
Good choice.
I unsubscribed about then after around twenty years.
"those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"
- Voltaire
Great quote.
We see it in action daily
Vindicated in one word: Amalek.
Such as ??? Cynical misanthropic “both sides” liberal quotes help nobody. You mean like how absurd it is to accept an orange felon as a “non-absurd” leader of our democracy? What exactly do you mean there Voltaire? Less culture war. More economic class analysis and class consciousness.
@B_Estes_Undegöetz
If you're still calling President Trump the "orange felon" then you don't understand what's going on.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said "They fired her, didn't they?" Bill Maher said "But they published this crap!" which is the most important thing. The fact that such a person could rise to editor-in-chief of Scientific American says it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Unfortunately, our most important institutions have been captured by a combination of rad-ik-ul l e f t i s t s & kor-rupt neo-lib-erals who are selling out everything to the BlackRock corporate elites.
Just ask Neil deGrasse Tyson why over 2,000 males beat the world's female 1 mile record if biology isn't a significant factor in sports.
Degrasse Tyson also appears to have caught that "woke" mind-virus.
Um, they (SA) *didn’t* “publish this cr@p”. It was on her private account.
@@NichaelCramerit published a lot of crap with her at the helm.
We're decades into the problem of giving PhDs to people who do not deserve them. Almost all PhDs now are just normal average people who don't have the slightest inkling of what it means to be a doctor of philosophy.
Unfortunately , these titles are given for political views not scientific contribution. Soon the same will happen with Nobel praises. Barack Hussein Obama got one for archiving nothing, bowing down to a Muslim dictator, before he had even started doing anything. What a sham world we got ourselves into.
A Ph.D used to separate the men from the boys. A Ph.D was far far more difficult than completing a Masters degree, which all Ph.D students got along the way. Most recently, Universities and Colleges have reduced the requirements for the Ph.D. In Electrical Engineering 30 years ago, you had to be expert in 3 major sub fields. The Ph.D often took 4 to 7 years of full time work to complete. Today, many universities and colleges have reduced the requirement to a single sub-field, and most candidates are completing their work in 2 to 3 years. Basically, they have reduced the Ph.D curriculum and academic requirements to simply another Master's Degree. It's become all about the money to colleges. They don't care that they have dumbed down the status of the Ph.D, as long as they make more money per student since the college's costs are now much less.
@@manojudd8638 I agree with all of that, and I would like to demand even more. When Plato defined the term "philosophy" he meant to capture an unrelenting love and hunger for all of knowledge ("when you love something, do you love it in part, or in whole?"). Knowledge he meant, not wisdom. A PhD is supposed to be a person with a lifelong insatiable curiosity for all parts of learning, the ability to master any domain of knowledge. The specialization in a particular subfield is meant to certify that they could equally well learn any field they chose. That's specifically why the term "philosophy" is used for all PhDs.
Boy thermonuclear howdy.
Plus all the faked academic papers
Scientific American changed my life in high school and into college.
A couple of years ago, when my son was in the 8th grade, I bought him a subscription remembering how much it taught me.
When the first issue came he brought it to me asking why on earth I got this for him. When I skimmed through the issue we tossed it in the trash.
The Lancet is also going down this same ridiculous path
Yuor kid is smart. Thank God
@@pamtnman1515yes, it is. 😱
😂😂😂😂😂
It is probably a good idea for you to review your son’s text books and homework assignments as I can guarantee you the same agenda is in his school. Or don’t.
It is best to homeschool folks.
I got a subscription to Scientific American in my mid-teens around 1965. It had a considerable and positive influence on my life. However, around 1980, it seemed to be getting thinner, so I only occasionally bought it. I don't think I've read an issue in about 30 years. I am very disappointed to see that it is now total garbage.
Same here; I subscribed ‘71 to ‘81 and proudly archived the issues under gold-stamped buckram bindings. By ‘81 the issues thinned out and the Science And The Citizen columns had migrated leftward. Martin Gardner’s column vanished. What has happened since though is appalling. No science-minded person should come within a mile of such content. What a shame.
New Scientist mag went the same way and National Geographic has become plain nauseating with wokery.
Agreed!
Yes, cancelled this as well.
Absolutely agree
Are used to subscribe to all three, no more
Agree, Nat Geo does not even come close to hiring the types of professionals that they used to. It's just a bunch of work-from-home journalists, that read other leftists news, talk to a few "experts" over the phone, and then regurgitate the same nonsense as what was already published by some other leftists. Journalism and news is all a race to the bottom right now. There is no money to support the types of quality journalism needed to create an in-depth, original work, because that would require paying to send real seasoned researchers to far corners of the earth to dig for a real scoop. That busienss model is dead.
The Lancet in the UK is another example of the rising tide of structured embedded ignorance.
I'm stunned. The Lancet used to be noted for the rigor of its editorial team. Having a paper accepted for publication was a coup in the medical research field. It put the individual or team on the map.
And the BMJ.
@@harryplummer6356 BMJ is the organ of the BMA, I think, which is also a hotbed of activism these days.
@@marichristian NEJM is still good, but for how long...?
@@andrewcorrie8936 Quite right.
I have not read Scientific American for many years. I had no idea they were publishing these garbage, woke articles. Excellent essay by Michael Shermer.
Oh they bloody were. I stopped reading them some years back and also stopped recommending them for my kids.
October's cover: How to go back to the moon. The science of empathy. A chickadee mystery. Hope for sickle cell disease.
November's cover: Learning from Lucy. Did dark energy change. Leap secons. The staggering success of vaccines.
I do not understand all the offended posters here. I guess maybe the anti-vaxers and creationists could be triggered but why would they buy SA and come post their cancel culture here.
SciAm had become a self-styled "upscale" version of Popular Science magazine more than a quarter-century ago. Unlike PS, it has had no usefulness for even longer than that. At least one could use the pages of Popular Science for outdoor toilet wipes or to start the fire in one's wood stove, but SciAm's gloss-coat paper isn't even usable for these low purposes. Good riddance.
most posters here are like you. They have no idea. No clue. No sense.
They are here to gripe, lie and bluff like the typical social media rabble.
I was a subscriber to Scientific American until I could no longer put up with its feminist bias.
Or the relentless 'climate change' one-sidedness.
Her " scientific " acumen will be most welcomed at The View
She’s committed “editorial objectivity” 😂 There’s not a single person on Blue Cry that’s interested in this, including her.
Nailed it….
😂😂😂
You are awful but I like you.
Ah, yes... That prestigious peer-reviewed platform for illuminating our minds.
These are people are ridiculous. The barbarians came through the gates, unchallenged, years ago.
Legend has it:
She thought she was working at ministry of truth magazine.
She knew she was, she was just too obvious and clumsy about it. Thus she was offered up as a sacrificial lamb for the “good of the party” to act as a smokescreen.
Well, she's an 'unperson' now.
MiniTru heard that !
They performed their own science. The science of control and contempt. They measured how far they could go. They made it a lot further than i thought they would!
As a long term subscriber I cancelled a few years ago, as Climate Change articles became dogmatic, not scientific.
They have been dogmatic and not scientific about evolution since they were created.
I did the same 15 or 20 years ago after reading one of the then-editor's columns.
What took you so long?
The political Left is only dogmatic, never scientific
I think it should it be renamed as Dogma & Science and then the reader s can decide which article belongs to which of the two categories. I anticipate some lively discussions.
Mr Shermer: Sadly, the needle had already started moving away from objective science when SA refused to publish any criticisms of the orthodox doctrine of Global Warming.
Which part exactly do you think is wrong about the science of global warming?
It seems at this point it's even getting difficult seperating the science from the political activism, but I'd hold that the science is sound, while the activism sometimes run wild with it and reaches some bs conclusions.
@@steffenjensen422 SciAm published Mark Z. Jacobson's drivel claiming that an industrial civilization can be run on wind and solar power, which is a load of crap. That may not be climate science, but climate science is being used to drive this swindle which is driving energy costs up, catastrophically destroying electrical grid reliability and creating vast profits for the political cronies collecting the subsidies.
Jacobson's BS was soundly criticized by a group of authors from the NAS. Jacobson's response was not another article, but to sue the folks who criticized him.
I once made a quiet point on a podcasting professor that universities were increasingly prescriptive in telling students what they should think. I was met with a stream of insults and foul-mouthed invective. It's odd how many intellectuals(?) think that abusing those they disagree with is appropriate or helpful, as opposed to arguing lucidly.
You weren’t getting a thinking academic angry at you. You were getting a liberal activist angry at you. Liberals are an intolerant bunch. They are so intolerant they even get upset with other liberals who don’t 100% support the liberal agenda.
Academia has become infested with fanatical Marxist ideologues, it's no longer fit for purpose and should be dismantled!
Seems like you could have worked in a few more words from the SAT into this comment. Maybe give it another revision?
@@danielcurda3633 Sorry for being literate. You clearly know best, so you can do the revision.
The posts by this lady, putatively intelligent, contained no substantial thoughts. I think I could have done it better, actually. If I was idiotic enough to think Kamala should have won, that is. I suspect she was intoxicated.
Maybe Musk, Thiel, and Andreessen should get together and buy Scientific American to put Scientific back into American again.
Satire?
@@theoldman2821 Yes! I had to read that comment twice. Beyond belief.
Dear god … You have been brainwashed by authoritarianism 😂
Also, der furer 😮
If you science will guide the decisions in the next 4 years, you can't tell f act from f ucked.
I ended my subscription to Scientific American years ago when I started reading this kind of stuff. Thank you for exposing what the journal has become.
The same with National Geographic. A joke.
I ended my National Geographic subscription in 2006 as it went increasingly woke. Our family had had the subscription since the early 1960s.
I have the same reaction to the APA and how it has become a bastion for left-biased research and ideology
This is the history of science in a nutshell. "Science" does not exist beyond what people are willing to accept on a personal or ideological level. This is wrong, but I see no sign of it changing. A litmus test I use is "Can I accept a truthful statment regardless of who makes it, or do I dismiss it based on whether I like someone or not?"
the other litmus test is "Can a person comfortably change his/her position upon a debate". those who can't are ideologues.
Similar to Mao’s cultural revolution in which history and culture were destroyed then replaced with Mao thought, today cultural woke warriors try to replace historical scientific and cultural knowledge with woke new thought. They seek to destroy the old and historical but if unable they will carry out subterfuge - if not that then cancel, if not that - ignore.
It's funny you should mention Mao. Why? Because for many years this Selective Marxist view has been used as a propaganda tool against the West and is still "virulent" in the East.
Well put James.
Anything communism and leftism touches will be gutted. IDK who said it - communism is the Islam of the modern age. The American devolution of communism is woke and identity politics.
@jameslasso1690 so many words to say so little
So true. Mao pushed to eradicate what he called “The 4 Olds” which were Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Customs, and Old Habits.
Very good exposé of what has happened to the scientific American. Back in 2014 I stopped listening to ABC Australia for the same reason; It felt like they weren’t giving me information and letting me make up my own mind but instead they had decided what I must think. How can intelligent people become so delusional?
As someone who once was an avid reader of Scientific American but hasn't paid much attention to it for a decade, I find a lot of these opinion pieces quite shocking. When I was a physicist and later an engineer, I fully understood which of my statements was evidence based and appropriate to be spoken in that role, and what was essentially faith or opinion or cultural heritage and thus not to be spoken in a role as a scientist or engineer.
That person cannot be called a scientific editor. But who hires these people for these positions?
In rememberance of Rush Limbaugh - “Ditto!”
When a magazine puts out such nonsense it discredits all it puts out. Was a 20+ year subscriber starting in the 80s
This was a favourite of mine until a number of years ago when I started to notice the voyage of SA to an ideology and not science. Really sad.
Thank you for being a sane voice. I have no idea how so many institutions have been ideologically captured but it’s deeply troubling. It’s one thing to hold progressive opinions, it’s another thing to shut down discourse as “hate” and blatantly deny objective facts to push your narrative.
Not American and certainly not Scientific for at least 2 decades.
I first read SA in 1970 and was awed by the knowledge it contained. Over the course of my career and raising a family, I largely lost track of it. It reappeared in my life over the past few years but I couldn’t believe how Unscientific it had become! Good god, has it been this trashy for 2 decades!?
I used to read that magazine every time it came out until I saw them going left. Until they focus only on science, I will not be back.
I didnt realize it was this bad. Thanks Michael. Always great to hear from you
I noticed a huge shift in the articles at SA around 2016. It took me until 2020 to stop buying the magazine. It stopped being scientific years ago
It used to be Scientific and American. It no longer is both.
Nature magazine suffers the same DEI pox. Google: nature magazine woke
You mean either.
@@carmenmccauley585 To be fair, both statements are true.
Didn't Mike Judge make a movie about this?
*It is now neither.
Whenever I see the word "equity" my hackles go up. Massive red flag.
How wonderful it is to get to listen to a truly rational voice for a moment. Thanks Michael!
It is good to know there are still some honest great thinkers who are not afraid to call out the OEI take over.
"If you silence me, then why shouldn't I silence you?"
Great job, Quillette! Having the author read his own piece is a fantastic way to present articles!
I quit reading S.A. long ago. An editorial in S.A. blasted a book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg and Bjorn himself, and then refused to allow Bjorn to respond. I read the book. Bjorn was right; S.A. was wrong, both on the editorial, and certainly on their omissive censorship of an author. At that point I realized that I was being fed bias rather than Science. I realized that, in S.A., politics and personalities were being pushed over the process of scientific discussion. Not liking censorship, bias or their superior, but wrong, attitude, S.A. is dead to me. Science is not now, nor never will be, settled. Science is a process. It is not the "truth", it is the effort of discerning the truth.
Same. They took the approach that their job was to destroy Lomborg (we didn’t have canceling yet), not engage with and debate his actual ideas.
At that point I realized I couldn’t trust anything they published.
I was a Scientific American subscriber for 50 years. Starting in 8th grade in 1966. I saw lots of changes in staff and editorial style. For 50 years, I felt like the editors respected my ability to use my brain to analyze the facts presented, and come to logical conclusions. Then 2016 occurred. Neither of the major parties bothered to put forth someone I could vote for. I voted for another party for President. Unfortunately, Scientific American decided to forego the apolitical stance that the magazine had always adhered to. And then they went even further, trying to tell their readership about one candidate's unscientific stances. I can read politics from publications that know a lot more about the nuances of politics. That is not why I read Scientific American. So I cancelled my subscription. When they chose to take sides on both subsequent elections, I knew that my decision was correct. The organization deserves to die on the vine. That no one stopped this nonsense in 2016, nor questioned the other positions being taken since then is more than enough evidence that the institution is on life support that needs to be unplugged.
Context matters here. What were the unscientific stances? I know it didn't happen but if an presidential candidate promoted phlogiston theory or phrenology and actively campaigned on these topics, it would be laughable to suggest a scientific magazine couldn't write articles on it because it's political. Dawkins is mentioned in this video, and I respect him, but he's said some pretty hardcore statements in favor of abortion that would likely deplatform him from a similar position. And have him denounces from people on the right. Musing on why mothers should abort fetuses with down syndrome is getting eerily close to eugenics.
@@coryc9040 My point is that it is okay to report stances that are unscientific, and then respect my intelligence enough to let me decide the logical course of action. The editorials became more patronizing and condescending in tone as time went on. It turns out that there are much better science journals available that don't have an editorial board that views their subscribers as idiots. I have transitioned to those sources for my information.
Pretty woke reaction on your part
@@serioustoday I fail to see what is woke about not wanting to be preached to by a source that I am going to information from. My decision was already set that neither candidate was my choice in both '16 and '20. But if the editors of that rag were more interested in supporting and agenda than in doing what I paid them for, I wasn't going to waste my money on them. Their subsequent descent into anti-science positions has validated my assessment.
Wow. I was a 25 year subscriber starting in the 80s. I find the older the issue the better. I canceled because the became less rigorous over time. I’m guessing to appeal to a larger audience
Woke is Evil.
I've been a reader for about 60 years. When I was a child, I remember being challenged by the rigorous scientific content of the articles. They were often written by the scientists themselves and even showed the math related to the subject. This is no longer the case. I was not only inspired to become a scientist by the magazine but I also learned a tremendous amount of good science over the years. Lately, most of the articles are written by journalists, have little depth, and are formulaic. There is little, if anything, to inspire or to learn anymore. Sadly, I have recently bid farewell to a lifelong friend and let my subscription lapse.
Indeed, that magazine was an inspiration. An engineer neighbour had all the issues from the 50s and 60s which i could read and imagine.
One can say the same about business and economics. They too have fallen to Leftist Narratives. And dont even talk about Human Resource departments in any entity. For Profit, Non Profit, Education, Corporations, Armed Forces, etc... they are about Soviet as they get.
My experience is similar, but I gave up on it (switching to American Scientist) around 2008 after SciAm became markedly more ‘popular’, less rigorous, using more stock graphics, etc. The ending of the Amateur Scientist column was a major blow, I felt.
Scientific American is no longer scientific. It was a truly great magazine.
Woke ruins everything it touches.
This is one of the comments I can relate to (as opposed to all this endless discussion of "woke"). When I was in college, Scientific American articles were indeed written by the scientists who did the research. Sometimes I had to struggle a bit to understand some of the articles in say, biology or chemistry (my field is physics), but I always came away from an issue feeling I had learned something. Many years later, as a professional physicist, I co-wrote an invited article for SA in the early 2000's. I was furious when the editor changed much of the language in the piece without consulting us, in order to make it more "gee-whiz". I told the editor that I would never write anything for them again. Not long after that, the science articles were being written by science writers and editors, as opposed to the scientists themselves. I think it has now become an "airport magazine".
I was a subscriber of Scientific American for many years. I used to give out subscriptions as Christmas presents. As a career military officer I always felt the SA military themed articles were laughably left-wing. Besides that however, the publication was popularized and cheaper version of Science and Nature magazines. In the past couple of decades the magazine started being seeded with additional leftist dribble masquerading as science. It was sad after receiving much joy reading my monthly issues that I was forced to cancel my subscription. I do hope that the future holds a correction of this unfortunate trend.
I cancelled my SciAm subscription ... too expensive plus they have been letting politics overrule science for a while.
I have been a more-or-less constant subscriber since the mid-1960s when I was a kid entering science fairs.
Could not believe how much obvious political slant there was in recent years..... politics over science in every issue.
I stopped reading SA in the early 2000's when they labeled anyone who questioned the faulty climate models as "deniers". They became propagandists at that point and I lost interest in their magazine. As an Ecologists and Scientist by profession, I gave up on them, and it has apparenetly gotten much worse.
What has happened to SciAm has happened to the government of Canada. Good grief we need an election.
Tell the doctor where Mr. Trudeau hurt you, you seem very fragile LOL
@@SpencerDonahue Thanks for the irony, you wokistani.
Yes, it all started in early 1971, when Margaret “vacationed in 4 Caribbean Islands” of which only 3 were publicly disclosed…
Do you think that Pierre will set things right?
@@moreyladini7708 Hmmm... I remember Christmas Day, 1971 rather well. ;-)
I stopped reading Scientific American and let my subscription lapse over a year ago. What a terrible end to a great magazine.
Never thought I’d see Lysenkoism happen in America but that was only my ignorance. As it turns out, science is quite easily co-opted by political and ideological stupidity and the only difference between Scientific American and all the others is that they aren’t sending those who disagree to actual forced labor camps in Siberia…so we have that going for us, which is nice…
Nice Caddyshack reference
But they are canceled !
@@tommyrq180 It is funny that you should mention Lysenko. He was an intellectual fraud in opposition to the "budding" science of genetics. Apparently he also wanted to promote Stalin-style, National-Socialist views on knowledge.
It isn't too far away of us ending up in a "re-education camp" for demonstrating "bourgeois tendencies".
Scientific American has lost its way. It is so sad. There are still some sane intelligent educated people out here who do not subscribe to the crazy thinking that is taking over the mechanisms and publications of science. Thank you for the sane rational thinking. I have many of your books and learned a lot from them.
They don't realise the lost trust will not come back.
I encountered SA in my high school exactly 50 years ago, and I was enamoured of it. Now going through many comments, I am tempted to point out that the decline of SA, like so many other organs of the American Empire, points to the decline of the empire. Its like old age where multiple body organs deteriorate; you know its happening but no one can stop it.
Neo marxsist religious bias affects so many levels of scientific investigation and publication
Mr. Shermer: Brilliant! Thanks for the insightful thought. When I was in school (don’t ask when) Scientific American was considered on par with the Bible. How ironic - it nows thinks it is the bible.
I canceled the magazine 10 years ago because of its incessant promotion of the climate alarmism industry.
🤣🤣 just another thick #snowflake complaining about scientific facts. How quaint!
Bingo.
Same with National Geographic.
@@xyzct inconvenient scientific facts are not for certain ideologies.
@@DarkMatter2525 The climate has always changed.
The human being does not influence it.
The problem wasn’t their take climate science. It was nonsensical sociology and gender studies opinion pieces being raised to the status of science.
Thank you for your honesty, integrity and courage in the face of hyper-emotional, delusional, divisive, virtue-seeking children in adult bodies who haven't a clue about freedom of speech or freedom in general, not to mention science. What the scientific community did to James Watson was yet another example of the hypocrisy and cowardice so common among today's academics.
National Geographic and New Scientist also sank in the woke mire.
I always thought New Scientist was always kind of in the woke camp, maybe even a little bit Marxist. And this was well before the days when SA went woke.
Yes already c.2000 I felt.
I’m so glad I discovered this channel, and I look forward to future content!
Ideology is an effective antidote to intellect
Two possible causes of disparity. Either unfairness exists in the system, or the individuals within the system are unequal in capability. No honesty can exist unless we are allowed to discuss the second cause. It has NOT been proven that humans are equally capable. The belief in equality is a political doctrine.
Great essay Michael. You’re one of the few sane voices of rational thought still willing to put your neck on the line and simple state the truth. It’s a shame to see these once prestigious magazines I grew up with and that inspired me to the sciences and to dream of better future fall victim to ideology and fascistic tendencies.
Please keep up the fight for those of us who do not have the same platform and reach as you do.
The truth about something is far more important than someone's feelings about that thing. More and more people are saying this loudly and clearly - because our patience and tolerance has allowed those with feelings about things (such as gender) to dominate the debate. No more - Our patience is finished and our tolerance is over.
Yup I couldn't believe it when I started reading some of the political articles in scientific American. As a scientist I was disgusted. Never read it again
Very sad. I have a subscription at the office so I can put it out in the waiting room. Seemed so good to give people an alternative to People and the like... and now I'm not so sure. I remember a million years ago when this was a great journal. I hadn't realized what it had become.
When institution like scientific American publishes this garbage, it remains in the archives forever. Its reputation can thus never recover. A new publication is required.
Clearly subtraction was your favourite subject.
Will not work, the industry is 99% run by feminist, who push all of this because it feels right to them.
Thank you, Michael Shermer. Even when I occasionally do not agree with him, he is always honest, straightforward, and logical in his arguments. Scientific American needs a housecleaning.
Pure, rational, articulate sanity. A breath of oxygen amidst the poison gas of wokery.
It’s so refreshing to listen to someone like you. Not only for the sake of the American Nation, but of humanity.
The rot at SA started with John Rennie (editor) in the early 2000's when he trashed Bjorn Lomborg's book, "Skeptical Environmentalist". Rennie was the first at SA of a breed of "science writers" who don't actually "do" science, but have the intellectual arrogance to "interpret" science for the scientifically benighted. Before Rennie, most articles were written by real scientists who actually did the "science", and used SA to explain their work to the wider public. I still treasure my collection of SA from '71 to 2000 or so. But Rennie ended SA for me, and it has been worthless ever since. The latest kerfuffle is just a continuation of more than 20-years of SA circling the drain.
I couldn't remember that editor's name until reminded just now, but he was the reason I cancelled as well.
Being a "skeptic" is an industry. However without good arguments, good evidence , good experiments, good observations the skeptic is simply a salesman. You probably like "Chariot of the gods" and hate "Future Shock"
@@captsorghum cut thru your alzeimers, how could you forgetJohn Rennie if he vexed you so much and you cancel cultured him
@@serioustoday It was a long time ago and not worth remembering. I just didn't feel like paying for that nonsense at the time, there was plenty of it on TV. Sorry if you felt slighted, Mr. Rennie.
@@captsorghum you"ll get over it.
the woke have ruined both SciAm and IEEE publications. The trust is gone.
And the American Physical Society
The woke cancer took over The Institute for Advanced Study, American Mathematical Society, American Academy of Sciences, every major award that once was a sign of distinction today became meaningless.
@@Nicolaus-ih3fy Indeed. They are all FUBAR now.
This showed up in my feed, I am glad that I clicked on. Thank you you for sharing your thoughts and giving voice to something that is very important for many of us. Maybe now we can begin to have honest discussions about the "science of science ".
Hello Quillette: Thank you very much for this. A couple of weeks ago I was explaining "identity politics" to a friend and I explained it as an inversion of Dr King's teachings. Have a really lovely day.
I never knew that this place or publication or whatever it is existed until I saw your video. It sounds like that's a good thing.😅
Regarding the quote from Pinker’s book, H.L. Mencken put it like this: “It is difficult to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
Ah yes Pinker, the self important hack that wanted to be best buds with Jeffrey Epstein.
Excellant quote!😉
So great to have this commentary by Shermer.. How could a magazine like SA fall so low.
Helmuth is not the 1st to drive a quality magazine into the ground. She should have edited a political magazine.
Maybe she could be a screenwriter for Disney Star Wars.
Something in the Hippiesphere would be appropriate. That is where kids who refuse to eat their broccoli should go as adults.
She did edit a political magazine. Scientific American.
Not before her deft hand ruined its scientifically unbiased reporting.
Why do we tolerate this nonsense? How many of our cherished institutions will we allow to be corrupted by fools?
Thank you, sir, for an excellent expose on the demise of the once terrific Scientific American. I could not agree more. I'm a retired grad degreed Aerospace Engineer with a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems Company and started reading SA in my undergrad college library in the late 70's. But have thrown nothing but disdain its way the last 10+ years.
I am guessing Laura Helmuth has no spouse and no children, so the “spend more time with her family” would be too transparently false.
Maybe she has cats.
😸😸😸😸😸😸😸
Or dogs?
@@mark91345 Are you suggesting that she might be a childless cat-lady?
Lesbian.
I once subscribed to Scientific American 30 years ago, hoping to get insightful knowledge about SCIENCE. I cancelled my subscription because the magazine was too busy being political. And I mean clearly political. Note that this was 30 years ago. It was extremely disappointing. I want journalists to give facts that I can use to be a better informed, more rational person. I don't mind changing my views based on facts. I do mind people trying to "gaslight" me.
DEI science is to science what a lightning bug is to lightning.
while ppl were worried about wokamala, they installed trump and other znists
Lederhosen much?
Entirely true -- and this guy provides no corrective. He just wants different dogma. And he is cashing in on denouncing DEI in the meantime, of course. Get that buck.
Oops, he mispronounced "pablum." 😂
@v2ike6udik Funny how that is, huh?
@@l.w.paradis2108 Pabulum is the British form of the word
I was a subscriber from 1959 until 1985 when the magazine began publishing political misinformation regarding the "star wars" program.
That’s the exact thing that caused me to allow my 15 year subscription to lapse.
It was not just their opposition to the “Star Wars” self defense program, SciAm also opposed new weapon systems to safeguard Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact, in the mid-80’s.
That caused me to let my 15 year subscription to lapse.
When SA adopts a standard of "do the data feel right?" you know science is doomed
I've been interested in science since I was about 12. Im now 78 and often find myself walking away from all types of scientific articles when they begin to hypothesize how their findings contribute to climate change.
I believe government grants for scientific studies are a major factor in junk science.
I was given a sub to New Scientist for a year, but it soon became obvious that some of its writers had been DEI hires and the publication had been ideologically captured. This, undermined my faith in its scientific credibility, and although they kept coming to my door, I stopped reading them because of the effort needed to fact-check the articles. This was a magazine that I had, since 1970, keenly sought for decades - travelling weekly into town to buy it from the newsagents. The same with Scientific American. These two magazines kindled my interest in science, but now there is better journalism on YT, frankly.
In the late 70s, my school librarian gave me about 20 years worth of SA magazines, which probably took me about 10 years to process. Back then, they were a challenge to read and didn't involve pop science. I sure miss those magazines.
As a teenager, my friend and I read back issues cover to cover and then would spend hours discussing the articles. Learned far more doing that then I did in college.
this was so well done. thatnk you quillete and michael.
Michael Shermer is an exceptional public intellectual and an exceptional guy - he's so learned, so accomplished but still self deprecating with a warm wonderful sense of humour. His interviews are always a warm meeting of great minds, witty and conversational, that everyone, irrespective of their background can understand and find valuable while still being engaged and amused.
Keep it up Shermer - if America had more ambassadors like you its reputation would be far far higher.
After you left Sci Am, I canceled my subscription and explained that I know longer trusted them to provide good scientific reporting. A year later, I got a survey and an attempt to resurrect my subscription. I responded with the same comments, and told them to stop bothering me.
Thank you for doing a great service by highlighting the monumental decline in scientific thought after SA went woke. Sadly, the same is true for ALL such businesses, institutions, and organizations, yet they lack a former insider like yourself to point it out.
Excellent summary of a fallen magazine. I was a loyal reader throughout the 70s and 80s, but then started to realize that in every article that touched on politics, the authors ALWAYS took the left-wing position. This was proof of editorial bias and I ended my subscription. Another source of outrage were editorials by editor John Rennie (1994-2009), who always had some left-wing point to make. He even told top universities to not accept any students from the state of Kansas because of the Kansas board of education's views on creation. I was disgusted to see how the left had destroyed my favorite magazine. Martin Gardener is probably rolling over in his grave,
I had the same experience.
Hearing that from Michael Shermer, the scientist, is truly heartwarming. Woke insanity is being pushed back. The tide is turning.
I hope all the devastated staff were offered milky coffee and colouring books to console them for her departure.
Thank you for standing up to the bullies and the mob.
This reminds me of something a friend of mine once said. He was a manager of a bookstore and apparently there's some kind of law that says if you are contacted by another store regarding the performance of a former employee, you cannot offer or confirm criticism of said employee - only work history. I'm not sure of the exact details regarding this law, but that was the gist of it (and also this is California). In order to get around it, managers who called him, who obviously knew about the law, would ask questions where my friend's silence or a 'no comment' would basically be affirmation of what was being asked.
How quickly we have lost the right to free speech! It is dizzying!
What are you talking about? The government hasn’t censored anything in this video. Just because of you have free speech from the government you are still responsible for what you say? Thats like cussing out my boss on social media and then claiming free speech when I get fired.
@@pbrown0829
Free speech is being cancelled by leftist organisations, not by government regulation..
@@pbrown0829 This disingenuous, willful obtuseness is getting really tiresome. You know exactly what they mean, because you’re not actually the clueless fucking moron you’re pretending to be. There are other forms of coercion besides being sent to the gulag, and free speech can be effectively curtailed in a plethora of ways that don’t contravene the first amendment.
Plus we are relying on the good will of a single multi-billionaire. Perhaps not sustainable.
I grew up reading Scientific American. It satisfied my intellectual curiosity and thirst for knowledge while helping me decide what to do later in life. Their articles were rigorous without being unapproachable, like journal papers were. It’s just sad to know that scientific rigour, not only in Scientific American, but in many aspects of the practice of Science, have been infiltrated by ideology and opinion.
"Believe as do I or I'll call you bad names."
As regards racial/ethnic/sex disparities in accomplishments: Assume all relevant persons are of equal potential. Then, give false accomplishments to selected groups, pander to them, insist that all their shortcomings are due to discrimination. The result will look substantially like the disparities we see today.
The intent to help "marginalized" people insures that a greater percentage of them fail to live up to their potential, and since the disparity is the evidence of discrimination, the disparity caused by the pandering becomes the incentive to pander even more.
Pinker is a brilliant guy. And Shermer is a warrior fighting for what is factually true--not what is "personally" true. Thanks, Michael Shermer, for your all your work. I have been following your commentary for years.
Read almost every edition from the mid 1950s onward. Subscribed in the mid 1970s. This valuable resource that helped many budding engineers like myself has now suffered an ignominious woke/dei/SJW death. I mourn.
The reason I stopped reading the magazine and the reason science itself is dying.
The 'hard' sciences, those in STEM, are not dying, and the reason the magazine failed is that it began ignoring science and scientists and catered for activists.
science is dying ? really? i missed that.
Nothing could be more unscientific than the science journals of our time. Publishing based on political narrative rather than an open scientific debate.
I gave up on scientific American basically back in 1995. Some of the articles are reviewed with other comparable authors denied the statement that the American was making and general their content was more of a storytelling than a scientific paper. I had tried the magazine for a long time, and it took quite a step which I also enclosed my reasons why I departed from them I would no longer recommend it to anyone.
I NEVER thought I'd see the day when I'd agree this much, on any topic, with Michael Shermer! LOL!
But... I'm there. Good for you, Shermer. THIS time you're making sense to me.
~JSV